With Georgia Governor Nathan Deal expected to sign HB 60, the state will considerably expand its recognition of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--particularly the "bear" part. Some of the changes:
- Patrons of bars and restaurants that serve alcohol will be permitted to carry their firearms--on the condition that they do not drink alcohol while armed, and if the establishment does not prohibit the practice
- Congregants of churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship will not be required to disarm--if the congregation elects to allow the practice
- It will still be illegal to carry a firearm into the secure "sterile" areas of an airport (which is, after all, federal law), but concealed carry licensees who immediately leave the secure area will be given the benefit of the doubt, and presumed guilty of only an oversight (a much smaller change than was frantically claimed by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' rabid anti-gun group, "Americans for Responsible Solutions")
- School districts can choose to permit designated personnel to carry firearms for school security
This, "guns everywhere" bill, as Giffords' group has dubbed it, is (again, according to Giffords' "Americans for Responsible Solutions") "the most extreme gun bill in America," although that assessment is not universally accepted.
So let's look at the concept of "guns everywhere," and why it should be denigrated. Critics' objections would be at least somewhat less illogical if they could claim that reducing the number of "gun free zones" was a solution in search of a problem--if they could guarantee, in other words, that there would be no need for self-defense in such areas.
So, for example, everyone knows there will never be a need to defend one's life (or the life of a loved one) in a bar. Oh, wait.
Well, OK, but, come on, one would never need to defend one's life in a church. Um . . . sorry.
Alright, fine, but airports? Uh . . . yep.
But, but, but, schools . . . oh, never mind.
In each case, only one example was given, but only for the sake of brevity, and not for lack of many more available examples.
There's a reason that the anti-self-defense zealots refuse to make a distinction between the concepts of "guns everywhere," and "guns everywhere except where there is no potential need for them." It's because even they lack the audacity to try to dispute the fact that no such distinction exists.