Georgia Halts More Gun Control with Anti-Gunner HB60

Fred DeRuvo March 24, 2014

"When I lived in California (for 25-years), it became increasingly difficult to watch the state legislature chip away at the 2nd Amendment (along with other amendments). Each county in California had its own rules as far as granting concealed weapons permits (CCW). In our county (one of the most conservative in the entire state), it was a “may issue,” which simply meant that when a person applied for a concealed weapons permit, the sheriff may or may not issue a permit to you."

"This would be after you took the mandatory training course ($150.00), then filled out the proper paperwork and paid the fee ($230.00) for the privilege of having a CCW that was renewable every two years. Even after you did all that, if the sheriff did not believe your reason for wanting a CCW was good enough, your application could be denied."

"If you were fortunate enough to obtain a CCW, only the specific guns listed on the permit were eligible to be carried, and the serial numbers of each gun were also listed on the permit. There was room for three, so if you happened to grab the wrong gun on the way out of the house that was not listed on the permit, it would create problems if a law enforcement officer (LEO) had reason to ask to see your permit."

"Good question that the left can't seem to answer...
Good question that the left can't seem to answer...
Once you obtained a permit, you were good in any part of the state."

"Yes, there were restrictions like federal buildings, etc., but your permit was recognized in any county of California, except San Francisco. These cops chose deliberately not to recognize a CCW and would routinely take (steal) your gun from you. If you wanted it back, you had to sue, and when/if you did get the gun back, it was usually in unworkable condition. This happened to several of my friends who had been pulled over for speeding and dutifully told the officer that they were legally carrying."

"There were (and are) a couple of senators who were always on the warpath where guns were concerned. Sen. Dianne Feinstein was/is probably the worst. Feinstein jumped on the bandwagon after tragic events like Sandy Hook to try desperately to get new anti-gun legislation through the ranks and into law. Feinstein introduced legislation in 1994 to ban so-called “assault” weapons and had continued on that path of gun rights destruction since then."

"Interestingly enough, Feinstein also has a concealed weapons permit, but Democrat lawmakers are never one to allow hypocrisy to stand in their way of getting something done. After all, they’re “special” people and certainly far more important than average citizens, though they have no problem propping up victims of Sandy Hook or other tragedies in an effort to push their agendas."

"Now of course, Feinstein wants to ban all semi-auto pistols and rifles and wants Obama to do so through an executive order (EO). EOs have no real jurisdiction or force of law behind them and are only really supposed to be used between agencies in the federal government. Congress fails understand the difference and doesn't seem to know what to do about Obama’s overreach except to try to make a law that will allegedly force him to obey the law."

"The state of Georgia has its own rules for obtaining a CCW. It involves filling out an application, paying less than $100.00 and having your fingerprints sent to the FBI for a background check. If you’re clear, in two weeks or so you’ll receive your permit in the mail. It lasts for five years before it needs to be renewed and no guns are listed on the permit, which means you can carry any gun you legally own."

"But now, Georgia has done even more to make certain the rights of law-abiding citizens are upheld under the 2nd Amendment. A new, sweeping gun law – HB60 – was recently passed by both the House and Senate in Georgia and now waits for Gov. Nathan Deal’s signature. The new law – dubbed “guns everywhere” by naysayers and opponents – will allow those with CCW permits to carry inside their house of worship if allowed by that church. Anti-Gunner HB60 restores some of the rights under the 2nd Amendment that the left has removed."

"Now, under HB60 (if signed into law by Deal), if a church allows people to carry their concealed weapons inside the church, they are free to do so. The other sticking point involved using suppressors or silencers while hunting and HB60 allows hunters to use silencers."

"It’s great to be part of a state that recognizes the validity of the 2nd Amendment and treats law-abiding citizens as adults. The left can argue all they want about people with guns, but normally, they put all gun-owners in the same category:"

criminals/crazies. "The left believes every gun has a mind of its own and will "go off" at any moment, because they think that people don't control guns, but guns control people. This is why they want to rid society of them, but will never be able to do so. They speak of guns as if they have souls, a will, and a mind to think. It's a subtle way of putting a gun in the "evil" category and bypassing the fact that evil people do evil things with guns, not the other way around."

"I've discussed the Global Elite (GE) on many occasions in many different articles previously (at my own blog or other places), and one of the things they want to do is eliminate guns from society. That is something that is so patently obvious to anyone who can think critically, yet there are people who refuse to believe it for one reason or another."

"Regardless of the gun-related tragedies that have occurred in America over the past few years and the way the Democrat lawmakers grab onto those tragedies to use them for their own benefit and agenda, there are still legislators who know the truth and want to do what is right. Obviously, those here in Georgia are among them."

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

DTOM, California is still a "may issue" state but the recent set of court rulings have struck down the state's law as unconstitutional.

The Dem lawmakers have moved to make the states laws much more restrictive. It is beginning to backfire. A recent ruling by the Federal Appeals Court (9th Circuit) has found the law unconstitutional because it requires that citizens show "good cause" to hold a CCW. Likewise other lawmakers are attempting to prevent Open Carry in the state.

If the 9th Circuit court ruling holds all the county sheriffs would be required to issue CCW's to those who do not have a criminal record.


A real CCW license should allow the bearer to carry his weapon in places where it is otherwise prohibited. As a general rule of thumb, if the police are armed, the CCW licensee should be armed. Otherwise, people should just carry their weapon of choice as they see fit.

I've discussed the Global Elite (GE) on many occasions in many different articles previously (at my own blog or other places)...

Where is your blog? I'd be interested to read it.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

There are two rational schools of thought about the applicability of the Second Amendment. Neither disagree that it severely limits government ability to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. But they do disagree about WHICH government is so prohibited.

I'm in the "state's rights" school. I follow the old rulings about the local applicability of the national constitution. In other words, the national constitution applies to the national government. That means each state government can decide to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. In 44 of the 50 states, a SA-esque guarantee is written into their own constitutions, so in most states, this isn't an issue.

But California is one of those six states where in the state's rights view, the state government can infringe. It can even infringe fully... the CA state government may fully prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms on the part of citizens and visitors there.

Chris, are you going to do anything about DTOM's plagarism? He's gonna get you smacked with some DMCA takedown notices if he keeps this crap up.

It's called fair use AC.

It's not plagiarism because DTOM put quotations around the article thus not trying to pass it off as his own creation. If at any point you thought DTOM was attempting to pass it off as his own work you should fault your own ineptness.


No, it's not Fair Use. Otherwise I could take the text of the entire Game of Thrones series, put quotes around it, and post it here.

Funny how you rush to his defense though.

Mind you, your moronic self can't even be assed to read what you posted, specifically the
17 U.S.C. § 107 part that says:

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Fair use is to cite PARTS of the work, not cut and paste the entire article elsewhere. You don't get to show an entire movie in a college class these days without licensing, but using specific clips from it is FAIR USE. You don't get to record Rush Limbaugh's or Glenn Beck's show in its entirety and post it here, you can post clips though. And I'm sure if someone recorded Fred's radio show in its entirety and posted it here, WSPD's lawyers would be all over that like white on rice. Ditto if it was an entire article from the Blade. Don't believe me? Go cut and paste an entire article from the Blade with quotes around it and we'll see how soon it takes for Chris to get an email or phone call.

However, if you want to idiotically argue the point, I'll be more than happy to find the author, point out the violation, and sit back with a couple beers while they sue the pants off Chris for allowing it and to get DTOM's ID so they can go after him for criminal copyright violation (which I think is something up to a half million dollar fine and five years in the pen max).

Please, MikeyA, do that thing with the chicken. Go there. DO IT. Or, Chris, do your thing and admin the site to protect yourself from copyright violation.

The quotations make it not plagiarism.

Posting the article here is the expression of fair use.

I notice you didn't give the full portion of the US Code that applies. Let me help you.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The article was posted for news reporting, criticism and comment. Neither DTOM nor Chris is profiting from the work being posted here. Additionally, since DTOM posted it to bring knowledge of the issue and the nature of the work was to expand knowledge of the issue the nature of the work and the nature of the posting are in line with one another. That the whole work was posted is irrelevant, all the factors must be considered and one is not disqualifier to the rest.

I highly doubt that the author would have a problem with another using his opinion to promote spreading the knowledge of the importance of protecting gun rights since that was the point of the article in the first place. Additionally, the article was posted freely and not sold thus the posting here does not affect it's market value. That which is given away for free cannot be thus devalued only inflated in value and we have already established that is not being done here.


Again, you are an idiot, MikeyA.

You keep ignoring this part:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and


If that portion is 100% of the whole work, it's not fair use, else, AGAIN, I could post the entire text of the Game of Thrones series up here surrounded by quotation marks with the commentary of "It sucks." or "I love this." and GRRM and his publisher would be COMPLETELY POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING.

If you seriously want to go there I WILL go to the authors and you can go explain your (wrong) stance to their lawyers on behalf of DTOM.

Now stop wasting my time and read the following, you moron.

Thank you for advocating breaking the law, soldier. Why don't you call in a JAG to explain to you why you're a moron?

AC I did not ignore that part I addressed it. It is you who ignored everything else I wrote.

"If that portion is 100% of the whole work, it's not fair use, else, AGAIN, I could post the entire text of the Game of Thrones series up here surrounded by quotation marks with the commentary of "It sucks." or "I love this.""

None of your links you posted said that if 100% of the whole work is used it's not fair use. I read every link.

You keep using the GoT example but it doesn't hold. That's because GoT has value. Meaning the creators are selling it. So by doing what you suggest you are reducing it's market value. The story DTOM is free on the internet, he is not changing the value by selling it or access to view it.

"f you seriously want to go there I WILL go to the authors and you can go explain your (wrong) stance to their lawyers on behalf of DTOM." I seriously don't think they'd have a problem with their opinion being posted all over the internet since..... they want their opinion posted all over the internet! That was the nature of the work part you ignored.

So please stop posting links that don't say what you claim while simultaneously claiming everyone else is wrong. It wastes our time because people like me do read links because of people like you.


"None of your links you posted said that if 100% of the whole work is used it's not fair use. I read every link."

That's right. They didn't EXPLICITY state that so therefore you're right and I'm wrong because you're a moron.

Let me give it to you from your boss, THE GOVERNMENT:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Also this bit:

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

That is "there is no specific minimum size" that you can copy without getting in trouble. However, the more you take, the more likely it is to flunk "fair use". Which is what the links I posted said, had you actually bothered to pull your head out of your ass and read them, but I guess since reading comprehension is not your strong point, as you have REPEATEDLY failed to comprehend that ONE of the FOUR FACTORS that determine if something is FAIR USE is The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole AKA "THE MORE OF THE WHOLE YOU COPY, THE MORE LIKELY YOUR ASS IS GONNA BE IN TROUBLE! Doesn't matter if you THINK you pass the other three factors, if you copy the entire article wholesale, you just flunked Fair Use on the basis of ripping off AN ENTIRE WORK.

Do ya effing understand now, ya troll?

And yet another link.

Here's why you are wrong AC. I'll give you an example. Sometimes posting of copywrited works are done with 100% of the work posted. A prime example are photos and paintings.

So let's use the graffiti artist banksy. You can find hundreds of pictures of artwork he as freely posted in public. A picture of it is a 100% copy of his work which is inherently copywrited as it's his sole creation. Yet even though a photo of his work is a 100% copy it doesn't mean I can't post the photo using Fair Use.

That is because Banksy already posted it freely and publicly. My posting of a photo of his work to bring attention to or comment on is not a violation of his copywrite.

Now if I attempt to sell that same photo now I am potentially breaking Banksy's copywrite because I am inherently changing the value (free) of the work.

So... thus we can conclude just because 100% of the material was copied doesn't mean it is a violation. All of the factors need to be considered.


Apparently this is the Teabagger site DTOM rips his bullshit off of:


It's not news reporting because it's not news.

It's not criticism because DTOM reposted it wholesale without commentary or criticism. He's not being critical of it, he just plagiarized an article without attribution as if it's his own work. (Lack of attribution to any other party.)

If this was a college paper, he'd be kicked the hell out for plagiarism.

The source web site has a copyright notice on it. DTOM violated it six ways to Sunday.

Chris is too busy worrying about being caught up in a slander/libel case that he completely forgot liability for people violating copyright on his site.

I can, right now, post a fifty page screed on why you are wrong, stick a copyright notice on it, and if anyone lifts my work off and puts it on their website, sic the lawyers on them for copyright infringement. IT'S THE LAW.

If the author wants to grant DTOM permission, that's FANTASTIC, but it's legally got to be denoted with the "(C) (author name) - reprinted by permission" thing else the author's copyright is infringed and then all sorts of fun legal wrangling occurs, like the argument that due to failure to police the copyright the work is public domain etc. etc.

You new where the article came from., but your right dually noted, don't make the same mistake.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"It's not criticism because DTOM reposted it wholesale without commentary or criticism." He posted it for commentary and criticism which meets the intent of the statute.

The onus for copywrite infringement would be on the owner of the copywrite to prove. Again like I said the statue has 4 factors to consider. DTOM's post fully meets the criteria for 3 of the 4. If the author took issue with it they would have a hard time and DTOM would have a fairly logical defense.


I have sent a notice to the admins at the email address provided to make them aware that this post is in violation of copyright. While our site openly encourages people to post the material elsewhere in part or in full, we ask that they attribute the author and provide a link back to the original source. That is merely proper internet etiquette,.... and it's the law. My hope is that we will not have to involve our attorney in this matter and that DTOM or Swamp Bubbles will handle the matter appropriately now and in the future. Again, we don't take issue with posting the material, but it needs to be properly attributed and linked to. Thank you.

Tim Brown

sure sure


You make progressives liberals mad, but he is right as far as the law, so big deal I will acknowledge the source.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

You should have attributed it but it doesn't mean what you did was a violation of the law. People post pictures here all the time from news sources without attributing and that's a 100% copy as well and still doesn't mean a violation of Fair Use.

Additionally, let's say FreedomOutpost is actually Mr. Brown (I can make fake usernames and sign things). Mr. Brown was not the author of the article in question. Thus ownership of the copywrite could still be retained by the original author. I know having worked as a freelance journalist. Some of the works I've written I've retained the copywrite on, others I've sold the copywrite to the publisher. Just because the website published the article doesn't mean they paid for the copywrite.

An example is this website. Chris owns swampbubbles but I do not recall any disclaimer where I forfeitted my right to any content I provide. So if I photoshop a photo of Fred, that's still my work. If WSPD chooses to use that photo in a advertisement I could sue for infringement of my copywrite. If Fred makes it his signature on here., it falls under fair use.


Not a big deal to attribute the links, I can do that. This AC guy goes beyond debate's because he is pissed off about any negative news against his Obama. So he was pissed off saying everything I post is a lie because it does not have a link. So now that links will be provided is it still a lie or does the link make it true in his mind.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Here is an example of AC breaking someones's copywrite. He stole it off of 4chan. He copied a work 100% and posted it here without attributing it.

Also Loosenut recently posted a full post from Toledo Talk breaking the copywrite of JR and Hockeyfan by stealing their intellectual property.

Paul Wolfarth routinely posts letters to the editor without citation.

AC's false indignation here is just an attempt to silence DTOM because he's been very annoyed at DTOM's posts recently. He did the same to me when he didn't like my posts, he tried to claim I had broken the law. I inquired where exactly I broke the law and he mysteriously did not respond.

AC's tactic is a typical tactic of the left. When you can't out-think your opponent you need to have them silenced. He is a facist pure and simple.


DTOM, Thanks for the correction:)

Now that you're going to stop being a plagiarizing thief, you think maybe you can stop being an ass too? "My Obama" pfah. I'm pissed that you're spamming up the site taking two entire posts to steal one article from some right-wing site... emulating your buddy Rand Paul, or are you actually him in disguise?

Right-wingers, they always steal stuff whenever they can, pile of crooks since Nixon.

"Rule No. 2: Sometimes you have to ask for permission. This is especially true if you want to use a song in a television commercial. In that case, you have to pay royalties to the songwriter and to whoever owns the sound recording, usually a record label. Lawrence Iser, an entertainment lawyer in Los Angeles, says, "Just as if you were making commercials for any product you can think of — if you wanted to put that onto television, you want to put commercials on YouTube, you want to make any kind of audio/video work that contains music — you do need to have licenses, you do need to have permission."

Iser should know. He represents Jackson Browne, who sued the Ohio Republican Party for using the song "" in a campaign ad for John McCain four years ago. Iser also represents David Byrne. The onetime singer of Talking Heads sued former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for using "" in an ad for Crist's Senate campaign.

Both the Browne and Byrne cases settled for undisclosed amounts. And Crist was forced to post on YouTube."

I contend the fact that all of DTOM's crap is similar to all the bullshit I get in FW: FW: FW: FW: emails from my idiot Teabagger uncle is proof that the GOP/Tea Party have no new ideas whatsoever.

I was not stealing anything MORON, I put quotation marks on anything that's not mine. technically I didn't attribute the source, but being the liberal Obama ass kissing coward you are you resorted to your superiors ideology of, if we don't like what they say, lets try and find a way to silence them. You served no purpose other then to cite a source, So now that the source is being cited, will it be true now? after all you said everything I posted was a lie with a citation, so now its true... Thanks Chumley

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

DTOM do you think AC will cite the photo he posted without crediting the author?


No because he doesn't believe he is in violation of the rule

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I was not stealing anything MORON,I used quotation marks if the work was not mine. Technically I didn't attribute the source, but being the liberal Obama ass kissing coward that you are,you resort to your superiors ideology of, if we don't like what someone says we will try and silence them. You served no purpose other then to get a citation right, bullshit. Ok, so now that the source is being cited,will it be true now. Because before anything posted was a lie without a citation. Chumley

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I don't like what you say because it's fucking dumb and you're a thief who is spamming up the place with bullshit you steal from elsewhere and post without attribution since you obviously have no actual thoughts of your own and have to use those of others wholesale. I think it's only fair that you learn to play nice on the Interwebs with using small parts of something and linking back to the rest so we can judge the source of your bullshit (more right-wing blather from a Tea Party site). But now that you've been proven (ONCE AGAIN) to be wrong and got in trouble I completely understand that you can't be the bigger man and admit you done screwed up since your fellow Teabaggers would eat you alive for being "weak".

If you worked as a freelance journalist you would be spelling it "copyright" and you would have known what actually constitutes Fair Use instead of being smacked down by the copyRIGHT owner.

Please, continue showing your ignorance in the face of having had someone from the site come in and make a legal notice.

Actually, now that I think of it, this switch to "copywrite" from "copyright" of yours starts me wondering if your account is merely a sockpuppet used by multiple people...

autocorrect offered to split it into two words the first time and I declined. From there it entered it into as one of my preferences. I really don't care as here I write informally.

Please look at my past posts. They're full of spelling and gramma errors. I really don't care nor do I care when others make spelling mistakes on here.

Are you going to apologize for your copywrite infringement?


IMHO, what all this, and most every other post by AC, are the result of his getting tossed from another site. All sane and decent people agree on this: nobody likes a loser, specially a SORE loser.

He's nothing in the real world. He's accomplished nothing, he is nothing. He comes out here because he can pretend for a bit to be a bad ass and that his opinion matters. Not that anyone buys it, but he can pretend. Note how seldom people respond to his posts.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.