Ever since the Savannah City Council approved an ordinance that punishes gun owners when their firearms are stolen from their vehicles, the local law has been facing legal challenges of its own, and now the Georgia Attorney General is weighing in with his own critique of the ordinance.
The local law, adopted last April, holds gun owners responsible if their firearms are stolen from either an unlocked vehicle or wasn’t stored in a under certain circumstances. Under this ordinance, having a gun stolen, either from an unlocked vehicle or one where the gun wasn’t stored out-of-sight, can result in a $1,000 fine or a one-month jail sentence.
The ordinance has faced multiple lawsuits since then, with plaintiffs arguing that the measure violates Georgia’s firearm preemption law. In an amicus brief filed in a case brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Georgia resident Deacon Morris, AG Chris Carr argues that the local law directly conflicts with the state’s preemption statute, which prohibits municipalities from regulating, in any manner, the “the possession, transport, or carrying of firearms.”
“This misguided attempt to punish law-abiding Georgians does absolutely nothing to address crime, and it won’t hold up in Court,” said Carr. “No matter how much the Mayor disagrees with our laws, he cannot openly infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our citizens. Progressive politics aren’t a defense for government overreach.”
As Carr notes, he originally sent Savannah officials a letter shortly after the ordinance was adopted to warn them that it was unenforceable and needed to be repealed. Instead, Savannah Mayor Van Johnson has continued to defend the ordinance, and sounded a note of defiance on Monday in response to Carr’s latest legal missive.
“The Attorney General has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in helping cities like Savannah address the deadly impact of illegal and stolen firearms,” Johnson said. “Rather than using his constitutional authority to assist in protecting our communities, he has chosen instead to take adversarial positions against the very citizens he is sworn to defend. In Savannah, we believe it is not only possible, but necessary, to protect the Second Amendment and second graders and teenagers. Public safety is not political; it is a shared responsibility.”
Of course it’s possible to protect the Second Amendment and second graders (along with the general public). Punishing the victims of theft, though, doesn’t do either. Johnson should be looking at ways he and Carr can cooperate in going after gun thieves themselves instead of using the issue to try to poke holes in the state’s preemption statute.
Fundamentally, the FPC lawsuit isn’t about the efficacy of the ordinance or whether it’s a good idea to require gun owners to leave their guns locked up in their unattended vehicles. It’s about whether Savannah has the authority to enact its ordinance, or if it’s up to the state legislature to establish a uniform gun storage law that would apply statewide (if they choose to do so).
Under the state’s preemption law:
“[N]o county or municipal corporation, by zoning, by ordinance or resolution, or by any other means, nor any agency, board, department, commission, political subdivision, school district, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation or by any other means shall regulate in any manner: (A) Gun shows; (B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons; (C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or (D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.”
While the statute doesn’t specifically say that ordinances regulating “storage” are off limits to localities, Carr argues that Savannah’s ordinance (as well as another requiring gun owners to report the loss or theft of firearms within 24 hours or face legal consequences) “squarely regulate the possession and transport of firearms in a manner that is inconsistent” with the state’s preemption law.
Even if there were any doubt about whether these ordinances fall within the preempted field, Georgia courts have made clear that preemption applies even when the local law addresses only a small part of the general subject. As the Supreme Court explained, “[t]he mere fact that the special law deals with some remote segment or element of the general subject embraced in the general law … does not alter the fact that such a special law is enacted in a case where provision has been made by an existing general law.”
Finally, even the best of arguments cannot escape the broad language of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173(b)(1). This statute prohibits counties or municipalities from regulating the possession, ownership, or transport of firearms in any manner— exactly what the Savannah ordinances do. Those ordinances expressly regulate how firearm owners possess, store, and transport firearms and, therefore, fall within the scope of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173(b)(1).
The Court of Appeals has already addressed a virtually identical question in GeorgiaCarry. There, Coweta County passed a county-wide prohibition against the possession of firearms on any county-owned parks or recreational facilities. The trial court upheld that ordinance, but the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the ordinance was barred by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173(b)(1). GeorgiaCarry emphasized that the statute’s plain language—prohibiting counties and municipalities from regulating the “possession, transport, or carrying of firearms … in any manner”—left no room for local rules addressing the same subject. The same is true here. The Savannah ordinances suffer from the same defect: they directly regulate how firearms must be stored, transported, and secured in unattended vehicles, thereby governing both their possession and transport. Because O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173(b)(1) applies with equal force in this context, and because the preemption is just as clear, GeorgiaCarry requires this Court declare the Savannah ordinances ultra vires and void.
Simply put, Savannah’s ordinance doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on. So why is Johnson so committed to defending it in court? Because he’s using it to attack Second Amendment supporters and Republican officials by claiming they won’t take “reasonable” steps to address violent crime, as well as trying to undermine preemption itself.
Unfortunately for Johnson, the fact that violent crime is plummeting in cities like Atlanta, where murders are down by 30% compared to 2024, demonstrates that it’s possible to improve public safety without putting any new gun laws (local or statewide) on the books. If Savannah isn’t seeing similar numbers, maybe that’s because the mayor is prioritizing punishing lawful gun owners instead of going after violent offenders. And when the courts do declare Savannah’s statute unlawful and unenforceable, maybe Johnson and other city leaders will finally be persuaded to focus on gun thieves and violent criminals instead of residents and visitors who are exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
Editor’s Note: The anti-gunners are getting creative in their assaults on our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and the pushback from 2A defenders. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
