2 Armed Robberies Close to me, 1 Ineffective Law

[Tucker 1371]

So as some of you may already know I'm a student at Georgia Southern U (sophomore now). I don't have a car so I had to live in an apartment that is on the campus bus route. This limited my choices to places that were within 1k ft of campus which wouldn't be so bad if there weren't a law in GA making it a felony (up to 10yrs in prison) to have a gun within 1k feet of any school campus (exception for CCWers picking up students).

In the last week there have been 2 armed robberies, one about a minute down the road and one in the building directly across from me (less than 25yds away). Same people, 3 guys, 1 with a handgun, forcing their way in and demanding cash and taking anything valuable they can run with.

So they get to have a gun but I don't? What do I do? All my guns are 4hrs away, I could bring one back to college with me after Thanksgiving break but then I'd be a felon. This law has got to be a violation of my 2a rights.

[hogdogs]

The 1K law should only be out in the open... Heck even driving by a school enroute to a range cannot be illegal no more than living 900 feet from the campus boundary. We can legally drive thru a gun free city armed and they cannot charge us under their laws.
Brent

[WeedWacker]

Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen but most college students (at least the ones I know including myself) don't have enough money to pull off a Heller without outside help. Is the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus involved in this?

[zombieslayer]

Here in orlando, UCF students have been targeted more and more, because students are an easy mark. Im normally anti-lawsuit, but you may have one.

[pax]

From the FAQ page at www.georgiacarry.org (http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/geor...ked-questions/)

Originally Posted by Georgia Carry dot com

Q: May I carry at school?
A: No! Georgia law provides that possessing a weapon within 1,000 feet of a school is a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison. There are numerous exceptions, however, and the most relevant are: A person with a firearms license may carry a firearm while dropping off or picking up a student. Off of the actual school property, a non-student may possess a firearm while in a vehicle in transit through the school zone, and any person residing in a school zone or conducting lawful business in a school zone (not on school property) may possess a firearm. In addition, teachers and other school personnel may keep a firearm locked in a locking compartment of a motor vehicle while parked on campus.

A school in Georgia includes public and private schools, colleges, and technical schools.

I bolded the part that seems relevant to you, and would suggest that with this as a starting point you go look up the Georgia laws directly for yourself. You might also want to speak to a lawyer to be sure you understand the rules.

Georgia laws are online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/states/georgia.html#codes, http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp, and http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_ti...2_5031,00.html

pax

[NYPD13]

There was a lawsuit last year in which a woman sustained physical injuries from an attack by her ex husband whom also murdered their daughter in the same incident, a result of negligence on the part of her township and its police dept. This was a domestic violence case, however I believe the victims only legal means of protection in that jurisdiction was an order of protection which the local police (who's station was across the street) did not enforce. The details may be different from your predicament however in substance the precedence to be set was that when the government (or other institution) removes your ability to protect yourself it in turn assumes that responsibility and is thusly liable. If you're a member of the NRA (you should be) then I might suggest passing along your questions and concerns to the Civil Rights Defense Fund. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to protect yourself in your own home regardless of its location especially since you're not on campus.

[Tucker 1371]

Thanks Pax... I think I fall under the category of "anyone residing in a school zone but I'll look for the law in its original wording to be sure.

[JimL]

Typically the anti-gun freaks NEVER realize (or never want to realize) that gun laws NEVER disarm crooks or crazies. If they come across the statement, "When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns," they instantly shout, "Mere catch phrase!" They cannot grasp it as simple fact. But the politicians tend to cater to them because they are louder. What's worse than a crazy, drugged BG? For most of us the most danger is most politicians. But then that's a catch phrase.

[MLeake]

... but you said you have to live within the campus bus route, but that requires you to live within 1000ft of campus?

Call me crazy, but why would they provide bus service that close in? Most public schools, you have to live at least 1 or 1.5 miles away in order to get a bus.

Frankly, a lot of students I see would benefit from walking 1000 ft one way, at least once a day.

Back on topic: It looks like you should be exempt as a resident. If not, why not move outside the bus route, and walk, say, 1500 ft to campus?

[Chipperman]

Well if the gun laws are not working, why don't they just make robbery illegal?


oh wait....

[JimL]

Well if the gun laws are not working, why don't they just make robbery illegal?

You must be kidding. Surely you know that if we would just outlaw all guns all outlaws would turn in all their guns, making robbery impossible - - or something - -

[maestro pistolero]

Quote:
Well if the gun laws are not working, why don't they just make robbery illegal?
You must be kidding.

Yep, he was kidding.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As you march into the battle for school carry, beware of a strong subtext against you. Certainly there are antigun forces BUT most business interests fight school carry as such laws might spread to force carry in private businesses. They don't want the precedent of forced allowing of carry.

Thus college bills almost always exempt private targets (oh, schools).

The business interests have decided the gun carrier is a greater legal liability than the criminal or nut. They couch their defense in terms of 'property rights' which makes some gun forum folks have a constitutional connipiton fit. They forget that property uses are strictly limited but this flees their head for some reason.

College also fear liability of the legal shooter hitting an innocent or a legal carrier running amok.

The money talks line is more important that antigun conspiracies. Why, because flaming hard right conservatives put up bans. One of our local tough guy, big gun collection car dealers is now 30.06 signing (a TX thing) his dealerships. When did a customer ever go nuts?

But he's a conservative Texan - :barf:. For fun, I e-mail a local all for guns right wing radio host. Guns, guns, the 2nd, RKBA etc. with a reasoned msg. asking him to discuss this issue. He certainly has time to say that health care is turning us into commies (don't discuss this) but guess what - not even a response. And why - $$$$$$

Glenn

[JimL]

Yep, he was kidding.

I know. Apparently you didn't read far enough in my post to see that I was kidding too.

[blume357]

until then you are free to choose how you live your life and which laws are righteous and which are wrong.

I may get in trouble for this... but I always get a little peeved when folks start 'thumping the law books'.... there used to be laws that made black folks 'non people' , then they were citizens but couldn't vote... then they could vote but just couldn't go certain places....

but it was the law so it must have been right....

make your choices but be prepared

[JimL]

You are only a felon after the judge bangs his or her gavel...

And how many hundreds or thousands of people have been banged into prison when innocent. DNA testing has its faults, but it has proven beyond any doubt that a "jury of peers" is a really pathetic way to determine guilt.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Uh, now we are arguing against jury trials and for disobeying laws?

The OP was whether the GA laws violate the 2nd Amend. The OP can complain as we all do. The next step is to seek legislative remedy.

If one wants to debate whether the jury system protects your rights better than the star chamber, that's another thread.

I would discuss the DNA issue there.

[JimL]

Uh, now we are arguing against jury trials and for disobeying laws?

Maybe that's how wrong verdicts and inane laws come to be - people jumping to unwarranted conclusions, misquoting other people, making false accusations, twisting words and generally ignoring reality.

Now I, for one, _will_ argue against something. When rule of law causes causes wrongs instead of righting wrongs it has gone too far. I believe the far majority of folks here are capable of seeing what that statement actually argues against and that they know it is NOT arguing that everybody should disobey the law.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JimL

...DNA testing has its faults, but it has proven beyond any doubt that a "jury of peers" is a really pathetic way to determine guilt.

The jury system may not be perfect. Nothing done by humans is. But that's still a far cry from "pathetic." It's certainly a lot better than trial-by-ordeal or trial-by-combat.

Originally Posted by JimL

And how many hundreds or thousands of people have been banged into prison when innocent....

Beats me. Do you know and do you have any solid evidence supporting your numbers? And how does the number of innocent people convicted related to the number of guilty people convicted?

Yes, innocent people are convicted, and that's shameful. each innocent person convicted is a blot on the system. BUT, without some solid data on how many innocent people are convicted compared with the total number of convictions (10%, 1%, 0.00001%, etc.), there's no basis upon which to characterize the system as pathetic.

[JimL]

without some solid data on how many innocent people are convicted compared with the total number of convictions (10%, 1%, 0.00001%, etc.), there's no basis upon which to characterize the system as pathetic.

I don't know the numbers and I don't care about the numbers. And I suspect neither would you if you were put away for life for someone else's murder.

Even Winston Churchill admitted democracy was - how did that go - "the worst possible." Yeah, yeah I know the rest of what he said, but that doesn't make democracy any better than it is. Look, I'm not some kid still wet behind the ears. I've been around a long time and I've seen a lot of junk.

But when DNA started putting justice on the front burner and people started getting out of a prison they should never have been in, I had to do a long hard look at our "justice" system. I used to favor the death penalty, but knowing how _pathetic_ the system is changed that. I'd say straight up, putting people to death who are innocent is pathetic and getting some BGs along the road doesn't fix it.

And having DNA testing or not having it is only one tiny part of the system. How many are in prison wrongly who simply can't be helped by DNA evidence? How many jurists had reasonable doubt and still voted "guilty?"

Here's a "rule of law" scenario. You know Mr Smith is innocent and about to be executed. But the law requires some legal detail before the execution can be stayed and you cannot supply it. The judge realizes the guy is innocent, but says "My hands are tied." That is pathetic no matter what the wrongful conviction percentage is or whether the issue is or is not the death penalty.

I've heard a number of judges, even supreme court justices say, "I'm not here for justice, I'm here to uphold the law." That is pathetic, regardless of percentages.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JimL

...Even Winston Churchill admitted democracy was - how did that go - "the worst possible." Yeah, yeah I know the rest of what he said, but that doesn't make democracy any better than it is. Look, I'm not some kid still wet behind the ears. I've been around a long time and I've seen a lot of junk....

What he said was, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." You may not be wet behind the ears, but if you're going to quote someone, you ought to get it right.

Do you have a better idea? What's your plan to give us perfect justice and the perfect society?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Okey-dokey - we are not on the OP. Thus, I'm closing it.

If you folks want to start a thread arguing against juries of your peers and democracy. Go ahead. Please research countries where this has brought paradise to the people.