Gov. Brian Kemp has vetoed a bill that would have blocked local governments from punishing motorists for keeping firearms unsecured in parked cars.
Senate Bill 204 targeted ordinances like one passed in Savannah that makes motorists liable for up to a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail for leaving a gun in an unlocked vehicle.
In a statement, Kemp said he was vetoing the legislation because it would open law enforcement officers to lawsuits for enforcing the rules even though they had no say in enacting them.
“I wholeheartedly support increasing the monetary penalties for local governments that attempt to impede the rights of lawful weapon carriers; however, such penalties should be targeted towards the leaders who enact such ordinances, not the officers who are tasked with enforcing them,” Kemp wrote.
Savannah Mayor Van Johnson called the ordinance a common sense way to keep criminals from stealing guns. He said he credits it with reducing the number of guns reported stolen in Savannah by half between 2024 and 2025.
“This is an issue that many of the metros are dealing with,” he said in a phone call. “We found a way to be able to respect the Second Amendment and protect second graders. We found a way to be able to protect the Second Amendment and to promote the safe storage of weapons, firearms, in cars. And it was threading the needle, but I think we found a good balance.”
“We don’t have a problem with people having firearms,” he added. “We just want them to do what law enforcement officers recommend, and that is just to secure them if you’re not around them.”
Heather Hallett, the founder and director of Georgia Majority for Gun Safety, said she’s celebrating the veto as a victory.
“I am just thrilled that public safety and specifically the right of municipalities to decide their own public safety framework is what won in the end,” she said.
Hallett called the bill part of a national pattern of states trying to preempt local governments from promoting gun safety.
“What we see is that a very small portion of the voting populace exerts undue influence over public safety questions like these foundational gun safety laws like secure storage laws,” she said. “And part of the way that they’ve done that is through state preemption. It is a strategy. It’s definitely a part of a playbook that we see across the country because state preemption laws have basically tied the hands of communities across the country.”
The bill was authored by former state Sen. Colton Moore, a Trenton Republican who stepped down for an unsuccessful run for Congress. Moore did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Wednesday, but state Rep. Alan Powell, a Hartwell Republican who carried the bill in the House, said he was disappointed in the veto.
“I don’t think there’s a lot of common sense to what these local governments are doing, but to me, they’re circumventing people’s rights,” Powell said.
“At the end of the day, they’re prosecuting citizens for something that a criminal does,” he added. “And I think that’s the wrong message that the governor has sent by that.”
Powell indicated there may be interest in reviving the measure next year, potentially with language that would alleviate concerns about making police liable to lawsuits.
But John Monroe, an attorney representing a man suing Savannah over its ordinance, questioned whether the failed law would actually cause lawsuits against police.
“You already can sue police officers if they violate your civil rights, so that’s not really a new thing,” he said. “But secondly, the law was kind of based on Savannah’s ordinance, and if somebody were going to want to sue over it, it would be more logical to sue the city because they have money. So if you’re trying to get money out of it, suing individual police officers instead of the city doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
Monroe said, in his view, current state law already prohibits localities from instituting ordinances like Savannah’s, and Georgia Attorney Chris Carr has signaled his agreement in a brief supporting the lawsuit.
Monroe said whether or not the court agrees with him could determine whether lawmakers try to take up the matter again next year.
“By then, there might have been more movement in our case, which potentially could make any further legislation moot or unnecessary,” he said. “But I guess on the other hand, we could lose the case and the Legislature might be even more motivated to try to do something about it.”
This story comes to GPB through a reporting partnership with Georgia Recorder.
