Georgia has a preemption law. The short version of what that means is that any gun control law needs to come from the state, with the exception of laws against discharging a gun inside city limits. In Savannah, though, they decide to prosecute people who leave their guns in their cars, only to have them stolen.
There was a legal challenge, of course, but now a judge has tossed it from court.
On one hand, it would be easy to be outraged – and I'm angry about it, for the record – but there's a reason it was tossed, and not necessarily because the judge is anti-gun. Maybe:
A judge has thrown out a lawsuit by a Georgia gun owner who sought to challenge a Savannah city ordinance that imposes fines and potential jail time for people who leave firearms inside unlocked cars.
The ruling by Chatham County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Karpf did not address the civil lawsuit's argument that the Savannah ordinance violates a Georgia state law that broadly prohibits local governments from regulating guns.
Instead, the judge dismissed the case on Nov. 22 after finding that gun owner Clarence Belt lacked legal standing to sue the city. Belt isn't a Savannah resident and hasn't been cited for violating the city's gun ordinance.
...
Belt's attorney, John R. Monroe, argued during a September court hearing that Savannah’s ordinance violates a state law prohibiting local governments from restricting “the possession, ownership, transport, (or) carrying” of firearms.
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, a Republican, made the same argument in a May letter to Savannah officials stating that “no local ordinance can regulate firearms.” City officials ignored Carr’s warning that they could face civil liability for enforcing the ordinance.
“It’s just a matter of time that this ordinance is going to be struck down,” Belt's attorney, John R. Monroe, said in a phone interview Monday.
Monroe claims that Belt doesn't walk well and his car doesn't have power locks, so the ordinance requires him to get up and walk around the car just to make sure the doors are all locked.
Yet that claim isn't enough to give him standing to challenge the law, according to this judge.
Monroe is right, though, that it's only a matter of time before the law is struck down. Georgia's courts have struck down every attempt at local government to restrict guns they've come across. The law is clear as to what exceptions are allowed, and Savannah's ordinance doesn't fall into that category. I mean, it's not even up for interpretation.
This is going to go down in a big old ball of fire.
The problem is that someone who has standing needs to challenge it, and the judge said Belt doesn't have it. I'm not sure I agree, though. Standing, as I understand it, means someone has to be impacted by the law in order to challenge it. Belt and Monroe seem to claim that he is, in fact, impacted. He may not have been cited or live in the city, but if he's there from time to time, he still has to comply with the law. That means he's impacted.
Monroe is still considering whether or not to appeal the ruling, and I hope he does.
