\n<\/p>\n
You\u2019ve likely seen anti-gun advocates crowing over the recent Georgia court decision where a judge dismissed a lawsuit<\/a> challenging Savannah\u2019s ordinance imposing fines and potential jail time for citizens who leave firearms in unlocked cars.<\/p>\n In the action, gun owner Clarence Belt challenged the law because it violates the state\u2019s firearms preemption law. And in fact, given the language of the state statute, it\u2019s very likely that Belt\u2019s assertion was accurate.<\/p>\n Georgia\u2019s preemption law states: \u201cNo county or municipal corporation, by zoning, by ordinance or resolution, or by any other means, nor any agency, board, department, commission, political subdivision, school district, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation or by any other means shall regulate in any manner: (A) Gun shows; (B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons; (C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or (D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.\u201d<\/p>\n Ignoring the statute as many big city leaders tend to, Savannah\u2019s mayor and city council unanimously passed an ordinance in April that outlawed keeping firearms in unlocked vehicles, and set a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail for each violation. City leaders hoped the ordinance would curtail the widespread theft of guns from vehicles\u2014by punishing gun owners who were victims rather than the criminals stealing the firearms.<\/p>\n Just a cursory glance at the law reveals that the Savannah ordinance very likely violates preemption. Of course, city leaders cheered the recent decision, and some in the media proclaimed it a victory for \u201ccommon-sense gun safety laws.\u201d<\/p>\n What you\u2019re less likely to hear from either city leaders or the so-called \u201cmainstream\u201d media is that Chatham County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Karpf tossed the lawsuit, not because he ruled the ordinance didn\u2019t violate the state preemption law, but because he ruled that Belt didn\u2019t have standing to sue the city over the law.<\/p>\n In the ruling, the judge found that gun owner Clarence Belt lacked legal standing to sue the city because he isn\u2019t a Savannah resident and hadn\u2019t been cited for violating the city\u2019s gun ordinance. Following the ruling, Belt\u2019s attorney, John R. Monroe, was direct and to the point.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just a matter of time that this ordinance is going to be struck down,\u201d Monroe said. And he\u2019s likely correct.<\/p>\n In a case last month backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the City of Savannah dropped charges against a man<\/a> charged with violating the ordinance. That move showed that even city leaders have little confidence that the ordinance doesn\u2019t violate the state\u2019s preemption law.<\/p>\n In fact, in early May, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr sent a letter to the city advising that the new rule was not valid because it was preempted by state law. However, city leaders chose to ignore that warning in the Belt case.<\/p>\n In the end, city attorneys continue to argue that the preemption law doesn\u2019t specifically address the \u201cstorage\u201d of firearms, so the ordinance is valid. It\u2019s likely just a matter of time before someone with standing in the case sues the city and the law gets struck down once and for all.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
![<\/a>Savannah City Hall<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\nYou\u2019ve likely seen anti-gun advocates crowing over the recent Georgia court decision where a judge dismissed a lawsuit<\/a> challenging Savannah\u2019s ordinance imposing fines and potential jail time for citizens who leave firearms in unlocked cars.<\/p>\nIn the action, gun owner Clarence Belt challenged the law because it violates the state\u2019s firearms preemption law. And in fact, given the language of the state statute, it\u2019s very likely that Belt\u2019s assertion was accurate.<\/p>\nGeorgia\u2019s preemption law states: \u201cNo county or municipal corporation, by zoning, by ordinance or resolution, or by any other means, nor any agency, board, department, commission, political subdivision, school district, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation or by any other means shall regulate in any manner: (A) Gun shows; (B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons; (C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or (D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.\u201d<\/p>\nIgnoring the statute as many big city leaders tend to, Savannah\u2019s mayor and city council unanimously passed an ordinance in April that outlawed keeping firearms in unlocked vehicles, and set a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail for each violation. City leaders hoped the ordinance would curtail the widespread theft of guns from vehicles\u2014by punishing gun owners who were victims rather than the criminals stealing the firearms.<\/p>\nJust a cursory glance at the law reveals that the Savannah ordinance very likely violates preemption. Of course, city leaders cheered the recent decision, and some in the media proclaimed it a victory for \u201ccommon-sense gun safety laws.\u201d<\/p>\nWhat you\u2019re less likely to hear from either city leaders or the so-called \u201cmainstream\u201d media is that Chatham County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Karpf tossed the lawsuit, not because he ruled the ordinance didn\u2019t violate the state preemption law, but because he ruled that Belt didn\u2019t have standing to sue the city over the law.<\/p>\nIn the ruling, the judge found that gun owner Clarence Belt lacked legal standing to sue the city because he isn\u2019t a Savannah resident and hadn\u2019t been cited for violating the city\u2019s gun ordinance. Following the ruling, Belt\u2019s attorney, John R. Monroe, was direct and to the point.<\/p>\n\u201cIt\u2019s just a matter of time that this ordinance is going to be struck down,\u201d Monroe said. And he\u2019s likely correct.<\/p>\nIn a case last month backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the City of Savannah dropped charges against a man<\/a> charged with violating the ordinance. That move showed that even city leaders have little confidence that the ordinance doesn\u2019t violate the state\u2019s preemption law.<\/p>\nIn fact, in early May, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr sent a letter to the city advising that the new rule was not valid because it was preempted by state law. However, city leaders chose to ignore that warning in the Belt case.<\/p>\nIn the end, city attorneys continue to argue that the preemption law doesn\u2019t specifically address the \u201cstorage\u201d of firearms, so the ordinance is valid. It\u2019s likely just a matter of time before someone with standing in the case sues the city and the law gets struck down once and for all.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Savannah City Hall You\u2019ve likely seen anti-gun advocates crowing over the recent Georgia court decision where a judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Savannah\u2019s ordinance imposing fines and potential jail time for citizens who leave firearms in unlocked cars. In the action, gun owner Clarence Belt challenged the law because it violates the state\u2019s firearms preemption […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4269,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4268","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4268\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4269"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Screen-Shot-2024-12-03-at-9.56.36-AM.png\"){kind=link}