"I'm all for people having the right to carry their weapons," she said, "but, we want to make sure that they're using them properly."

What in the world does this mean? It does appear that Mr. Proescher was in fact using a firearm correctly, by having it properly and safely holstered by his side, while being properly licensed to do so. He was conducting a completely legal activity, walking in a public park. His arrest appears to be as a direct result of a security guard who did not know the law, and compounded by police officers who did not know the law either. We will have to await the legal results of the lawsuits mentioned, however.

The lawful carrying of firearms by citizens may be bothersome to Mayor Kautz. However, she would be well advised to study state law, which preempts local ordinances that might endeavor to restrict current GA code. I think if Mayor Kautz has a concern, it is one that ought to be brought to the attention of her state legislators.

Don, I would be quite nervous being in Briscoe Park with someone other than a law enforcement officer possessing a firearm. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Proescher was wearing military style socks while openly carrying (brandishing) his pistol. Not only that, but there was a children's play area nearby. This leads me to conclude that Proescher was improperly carrying a firearm.

Clearly Mr. Towers does not recognize that the citizens of Snellville have a right to a sense of public safety which the alleged criminal, Mr. Proescher, clearly violated. The Gwinnett Police have a duty to maintain the peace, not simply restore it after a gun crime has been committed.

Oh Lord, it just HAD to be military socks. Why did he have to wear military socks, weren't police style or just plain civilian socks enough for that madman?

David: even as a law-abiding citizen doing nothing wrong, you are about as likely to be shot by a police officer--be they corrupt, crooked, poorly trained, simply misguided, or afraid/PTSD'd and prone to overreaction--as you are by a legal, licensed carrier. Perhaps if you were more concerned about your own safety, defense and freedom, you'd carry a firearm yourself and wouldn't then have to spend so much time being afraid of other law-abiding citizens who aren't threatening you. After all, a cop is too big and heavy to fit in your pocket: they can't (and shouldn't) be everywhere, all the time. Criminals who want them will still carry guns, but they won't do so openly, legally. I'd rather there be a civic-minded, armed citizen sheepdog around than just a bunch of unarmed sheep. All that "gun-free zones" accomplish is to make it perfectly obvious to the criminals where they can find defenseless victims to rob.

If you think police are well trained with firearms, you are sadly mistaken. The average gun-owning citizen spends far more time at the range training each year than police officers do, most of whom never go to the range except once a year to qualify for their POST certs.

Oh, and privately owned guns stop approx. 2.5million crimes per year.

http://georgiacarry.com/research/GCO-Guns_Good_Bans_Bad.pdf

Kwik: you forgot the </sarcasm> tag.

Mayor Kautz: fortunately for us, this isn't a decision you get to make. http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/in-the-courtroom/

David: too late, already allowed. The city has precisely zero choice in this: ZERO State law absolutely and irrevocably trumps local law, and state law preempts municipalities from restricting the carrying, transport, sale or manufacture of firearms and forbids them from making other rules to that effect.

I'm very sorry you're proud to be a product of a system and a state that has its head tucked so far between its legs, and what is very clearly a fear-minded liberal propaganda-ridden education, and that you yourself have been raised to be so cowardly as to leave a place because someone else has taken responsibility for their own safety and defense. You're welcome to continue going through life afraid, jumping at shadows, if that's your wish. In the meantime, it will be citizen sheepdogs like myself and other civic-minded, responsible folks, who take the safety and defense of ourselves and others seriously enough to carry the means to ensure it, and who will risk our own lives to save yours when some criminal who could care less about your morals and whims and fears tries to take your life or product of your work from you.

Free men own guns: slaves don't. Every people in history disarmed by their government is a people tyrannized by that government. Additionally, the U.S. states with the tightest controls on firearm ownership are also those with the highest crime rates in the nation: New York, D.C., Illinois and California.

I'd be worried if I had a mayor that lacks understanding of state laws as Ms. Kautz does.

Why would the city council waste its time on this matter? The state law is pretty clear. Municipalities that have stood by their gun bans have been sued, the ordinances repealed, and damages paid. To continue with this is folly. Anyone council member that supports this should be turned out in the next election.

O.C.G.A. 16-11-173 declares that only the General Assembly may regulate the carrying of firearms. "No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms . . ."

The law is clear. Several counties and municipalities in Georgia have been successfully sued for violating it. Why is Snellville putting its taxpayers money at risk?

Here's the problems I see with this article:
Cities can't enforce ordinances affecting gun possession.
It is illegal to carry openly without a license. After the recent change to the gun laws, in Georgia, there's no distinction between carrying concealed and openly. The only distinction in public is whether or not you have a license.
We don't license guns we license the carrying of guns in Georgia.

D writes
"O.C.G.A. 16-11-173 declares that only the General Assembly may regulate the carrying of firearms. "No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms . . ."

Klueless Kautz again....If she willfully ignoires the City Charter she's sworn to uphold why should she care about State Laws.

Naturally the Council wouldn never even think of passing such nonsense but it's AWESOME that Kautz is willing to illustrate her ignorance & make a spectacle of herself

When you refuse to allow a citizen to carry a weapon, you invite criminals because they will know individuals have no protection.

WOW! It's pretty amazing how many people including the Mayor that just don't know the law.

Should the council decide to move forward and put some illegal restriction in place...
- You will most likely see GeorgiaCarry.org communicate that the city imposed restriction is illegal, and ask them to remove it.
- If the City debates and ultimately ignores that request, most likely GeorgiaCarry.org will sue the City and ultimately win and the City will have to removed the restriction, and pay for GeorgiaCarry.org's court costs, as well as the Cities Attorney fees.

This is exactly how its already played out in quite a few cities, counties, and even Stone Mountain Park. (BTW in the Stone Mountain case even the states attorney general got it totally wrong which is pretty sad )

With that said... Proescher despite being right about being able to carry and wear military socks, handled the event poorly after the police arrived. He would have most likely not even been arrested had he been cooperated with the police. Do the research and read the arrest report.

To the people here that have done the research and do know the law.. I commend you!

To the people who assume that the City can impose a restriction, and are against legally carrying a handgun, Do your homework before you post a comment, you just look foolish.

We have a highly charged, no compromise atmosphere today. It is difficult balancing the constitutional right to carry a firearm with my desire to not have my grandchildren in Briscoe Park playing around folks carrying firearms, particularly when some of these folks appear to be irascible.

Hi everyone, Mayor Kautz sent us a letter to the editor clarifying her position. Check it out and let me know your thoughts: http://snellville.patch.com/articles/mayor-we-have-not-proposed-any-gun-bans

Here's a really good article that explains clearly how far off the reservation Ms Kautz has gone . It would seem her utter lack of understanding in regard to the clearly written words in the City Charter is only surpassed by her ignorance of clear and concise state laws as well

http://www.examiner.com/article/mayor-kautz-declares-georgia-law-on-firearms-parks-ambiguous

The Mayor "discussing" violating state law amounts to conspiracy.

Like most of the sheep, she hopelessly and hypocritically believes that laws will reign in those with no regard for the law, when she herself obviously has no regard for it.
I am sorry for the citizenry of Snellville for it will be they that must foot the bill for the hopeless legal battles that will ensue.
I wish I could tilt at windmills using other peoples money

It seems that Mr. Brown has drawn an overly excitable reaction from Mr. Towers and other writers on this forum.

Mr. Towers does not seem to understand that gun toting is not the only American right Americans enjoy. Bearing arms must compete against other rights, including the right to pursue happiness, which was described by Thomas Jefferson in the American Creed (otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence) as being unalienable and given by no man or law, but by the Creator himself.

There can be no doubt that Mr. Brown is deprived of his unalienable right to pursue happiness when he has to wonder whether the armed strangers around him will violently disturb the peace he seeks in a public park supported by his tax dollars.

Muster writes
"There can be no doubt that Mr. Brown is deprived of his unalienable right to pursue happiness when he has to wonder whether the armed strangers around him will violently disturb the peace he seeks in a public park supported by his tax dollars."

Ignoring the irrelevance of this entire discussion due to the ignorance of the state statutes by the Mayor for a minute.

Please explain how any law would alleviate Mr Brown's worries of armed strangers? By definition , criminals (aka those likely to interfere with Mr Browns pursuits) do not care or abide by laws.

Mr. Grant wonders how any law would alleviate Mr. Brown's worries, since criminals do not care about laws. With that, Mr. Grant seems eager to advocate a radical governing philosophy that abandons the belief that laws can discourage crime.

Perhaps true, but that presents a view that is far outside the mainstream of hundreds of years of Western legal thought.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” -Samuel Adams

“One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street… these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time.” -Jeff Cooper

“Owning a handgun doesn’t make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.” -Cooper

“The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory.”
“The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail… the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.” -Cooper

“Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands.” -Cooper

You're right Mr Muster...

The law is perfectly clear. Halfwit City Mayors have exactly zero jurisdiction in regard to carry laws in Georgia
As much as I'd enjoy refuting your attempts at logic I ( and Snellville) have betteer things to do than waste time on stupid

I am amused at the faux intellectualism that some writers are trying to bring to this debate by quoting Thomas Jefferson. Please be assured that Mr. Jefferson would be deeply offended that his name is being hijacked to promote ideals he never held.

First, Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, for Heaven's Sake, he was in France at the time! What makes him an expert on Constitutional interpretation?

Second, it's nonsense to believe that Jefferson meant for the right to keep and bear arms to be Constitutionally binding in 2012.

Since writers on this forum seem to believe that quoting Jefferson is dispositive, allow me to do the same.

In a letter written in 1789 to his best friend, James Madison, Jefferson disposed of any arrogance among the Founders that their Constitution should be perpetual - "....on similar grounds it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. ..."

Friends, if you truly wish to view yourselves as Jeffersonians, then you'll embrace the right of the "living generation" to decide whether they wish to be bound now by the 2nd amendment and it's quaint protections. Jefferson would certainly respect their desire to free themselves of it.

And, Mr. Muster, I suppose right after the 2nd amendment is overturned, you would have us move on an repeal all the other amendments. How do you feel about the Constitution in general-- should we dispose of that as well? You might consider that a prime reason that you still have First Amendment rights is because of the 2nd Amendment. If you think having the right to defend yourself is a "quaint protection", perhaps you should move to another country where the citizens aren't inconvenienced by such "quaint protections".

Dave:

Exactly. Without the 2nd Amendment to defend it, the 1st Amendment has neither teeth nor bearing. When our 2A rights to defense of ourselves and others from enemies both foreign and domestic--criminal and tyrant alike--are gone, our 1A rights will disappear soon thereafter.

The rebuttals to Mr. Brown’s right to a sense of public safety tend to reveal irrational fears that remind the reader of the hyperventilation often expressed by the emotions of global warming alarmists.

Open carry advocates may be living in fear of their own shadows, constantly looking over their shoulders, seeing danger lurking behind every azalea bush in Briscoe Park, but should their public expression of those fears deprive Americans like Mr. Brown of his right to a sense of public safety?

So where does Mr. Brown’s rights figure in to this? Who cares, appears to be the response he gets.

Mr. Brown's rights to what, exactly? What right of his, enumerated in the Constitution or BoR, is infringed? Please, show me the section.

Also, so you're telling us there is no crime? No murders, rapes, or muggings in parks? No crime in homes or on the streets? Are you telling me that the 2.5 MILLION crimes stopped each year by privately owned firearms is an exaggeration or outright lie? Are you telling me that the police actually STOP crime, or that you think they have some specific legal duty to protect you? Or maybe you're telling us that the clear and unambiguous statistics that show that the tighter the gun control laws, the higher the rate of violent crime, borne out in Russia, the U.K., California, NYC, New Jersey, Wash. D.C., and Illinois are just statistical anomalies? That the fact that every state that has instituted carry laws (concealed or otherwise) have seen a marked decrease in crime is somehow misleading?

OH, I know... you're one of those people who think that criminals obey laws and won't kidnap children or rape and murder people in parks because a sign said so, right? That criminals are not opportunists who commit crimes in places they think they are least likely to be resisted?

You and Mr. Brown are welcome to be sheep all you like. It is neither my fault, nor my problem, that you seem to be more afraid of the sheepdogs than the wolves.

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Muster writes
"So where does Mr. Brown’s rights figure in to this? Who cares, appears to be the response he gets "

Works for me .
The rest of us arent bound by Mr Brown's irrational fear of legally possessed and carried weapons and are under no obligation to cater to his specific whims by giving up a basic civil right enumerated in the Constitution.

I feel sorry for those citizens who feel the need to make up Constitutional rights, and who are indifferent or even hostile to actual Constitutional rights. I am sad to know that there are citizens who are afraid of inanimate objects such as firearms, and who go through life being fearful of them, and ignorant about them. I marvel at citizens who walk around in unreasoning fear of legally armed citizens, due to their own childlike fears of firearms. I wonder about the many citizens who feel no personal responsibility to provide for reasonable self defense and security for themselves and their families, instead placing an unreasoning trust in law enforcement to protect them at all times. I try not to blame these people, because they have been conditioned to these beliefs by today's society and education system.
I do wish these people all the best, I respect their views, even while I disagree and I hope for their sakes that tragedy does not visit them, for their misguided ideas. I am one among many armed citizens who will do my best to protect myself and my loved ones, and perhaps even some of my fellow unarmed neighbors. And I do hope the folks who have unreasoning fears and odd ideas about the Constitution, will educate themselves and grow as fully mature citizens who can embrace all of their rights.

You do myself, yourself, and everyone else a disservice with your presumption that those among us willing and prepared to defend themselves and others are somehow fearful or jumping at shadows, and instead only serve to highlight your own projection, fear, and paranoia, when you insist I am somehow a threat to the rights of others. My firearm makes me no more of a threat than the fire-extinguisher in my car makes me an arsonist. *I* am merely prepared, down to the first aid kit and FE in my car, my training for survival and independence, my ability to read a map, navigate in a boat, start a fire without matches, and to find my own food.

I live to protect the flock, and to confront the wolf.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/600103_397333163651084_1135772448_n.jpg

We have a new story up, with comments from GeorgiaCarry.org founding member Ed Stone and Rep. Brett Harrell. http://snellville.patch.com/articles/lawyers-and-officials-speak-out-about-gun-laws

I love how the sheep are so well trained that Simply because I have changed jobs, now I somehow cannot be trusted with a firearm... never mind that I have trained and trained with Military and civilian teams. But put me in jeans and a T shirt and I am a MWAG needing to be swept up.

Reality spoiler, the guy you need to worry about will not have it on his hip for the world to see, with a license issued by the state.
It will be a stolen gun shoved into a pocket and when you do see it, the police will be of no help. I can only offer mercy in that you do not suffer to live and bury a family member...
all because you thought the police would save you and your family.

These are the same people, after all, who insist (because the government employees tell them so) that the police are highly trained, reliable, and can be there in time to help you, never mind the fact that either one of us is guaranteed to have spent more time training with our weapons in the last 6 months than the average police officer will in the next two years and are more likely to actually be nearby to help.

I am not responsible for the misguided fears and paranoias of others, and their fear is no excuse to curtail my rights, at all. I know a lot of people afraid of birds, so are we also going to ban parrots? How about dogs? I know a LOT of people afraid of dogs... BAN THE DOGS!

My *RIGHT* to keep and bear arms, however--expressly guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of this state--infringes no other persons' state or federal Constitutionally guaranteed rights and does them no demonstrable, measurable harm. Your DESIRE to disarm me and potentially leave me defenseless from criminals, however, infringes my 2A rights and potentially my 1A rights (or my right to defend said 1A rights).

There's always someone afraid of something or someone else. Me? I'm afraid of nothing, and prepared for almost anything. For all the people who ARE afraid, then I suggest you actually make use of your right to pursue happiness and seek counseling and therapy, or go get the education, tools and learn the skills you need to not be afraid.

SD said "Mr. Brown's fear of legally armed citizens is unfounded. I suggest he educate himself on firearms and those who carry them."

SD, I have two words for you -- Trayvon Martin. Have you forgotten about him already? Certainly, Trayvon Martin had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It shouldn't have mattered that he was wearing a hoodie and looked like a thug.

Mr. Brown, you're correct, Martin had rights. He should have been more responsible with his rights that night and kept walking to the place he was staying instead of getting in a fight with someone who was prepared to meet deadly with the same.

David, I would be cautious if I were you, in using for your argument, a case that has yet to go to trial, and for which all the facts are not yet known. But from what we have heard publicly, it sure sounds like Martin was the aggressor, not Zimmerman. We still have to wait for the state of Florida to determine whether or not Zimmerman's actions were legally self defense or not. If Zimmerman is found innocent or guilty of the charges against him, does this have any effect on current GA state law? I don't think this one case will, either way.

David, we'll have to let the facts come out in the trial. Right now, all we have is part of the truth. But in any case I am not seeing how this case, however it is resolved, has anything to do with carrying firearms in Briscoe Park. We follow the law. I get you don't like GA law as it stands. I also understand you get scared when you see firearms. I suggest you stay at home and don't go out, just in case you encounter citizens who carry. Otherwise, we can't help you, buddy. Happy Father's Day.

Mr. Brown wrote: "George Zimmerman was clearly the instigator."

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Hello, your fearless editor here. I'm chiming in only to remind people that these forums are for healthy debate. Not attacks, not name-calling, etc. You can read the terms of use here: http://snellville.patch.com/terms. Bottom line: Everyone has an opinion. Let's keep it clean and respectful. Muchas gracias.