Strengthen Georgia's Weapons Preemption Law © 2026 Red Clay Watch
Kemp Vetoed SB 204. His Own Message Shows Georgia Lawmakers How to Fix It for 2027
The governor supported stronger penalties for local firearms-preemption violations. His objection was who could be sued. A targeted rewrite can answer that concern and close a third-party event loophole at the same time.
Gov. Brian Kemp's veto of Senate Bill 204 should not be read as a rejection of stronger firearms preemption.
His own veto message points the other way.
Kemp said the bill would strengthen the existing cause of action for lawful gun owners and increase statutory damages.
Then he made his position unmistakable: “I wholeheartedly support increasing the monetary penalties” for local governments that impede lawful weapon carriers. His objection was that the bill could expose law-enforcement officers personally even though they had no role in enacting the ordinance. Kemp said the penalties should instead be aimed at the “leaders who enact such ordinances.”
That sounds like a roadmap. Fix the target and bring the bill back in 2027.
What SB 204 Was Aiming to Fix
Georgia law already declares firearms regulation a matter of statewide concern. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173 broadly preempts local governments and political subdivisions from regulating the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing or registration of firearms and other weapons.
The current civil remedy is modest: attorney fees and litigation expenses, equitable relief, and actual damages or $100, whichever is greater.
The final SB 204 would have expressly added “storage” to the preempted subjects. It also would have allowed a lawful weapons carrier suffering personal, property or economic damage to recover actual damages or $25,000, whichever was greater, plus litigation expenses and attorney fees, or an alternative liquidated-damages formula. It included a one-year limitations period.
Preemption has little bite if a local government can cross the line and force a citizen to spend thousands proving it for a nominal recovery.
Savannah Showed Why Stronger Remedies Matter
Savannah made the issue concrete. In April 2024, the City Council adopted ordinances requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms and regulating how firearms must be stored in unattended vehicles.
On May 3, Attorney General Chris Carr's letter informed Savannah the ordinances were preempted, “ultra vires and void,” and urged the city to rescind them. The city did not. Citations and litigation followed.
In November 2025, a Recorder's Court judge dismissed one citation and declared the storage ordinance void and unenforceable in that case. A broader Superior Court challenge, Morris v. Savannah, remained active in 2026, with summary-judgment briefing completed in June.
Whatever one thinks of Savannah's stated public-safety goal, this is precisely why statewide preemption exists. A lawful gun owner should not have to navigate a patchwork of local firearms laws every time he crosses a city limit.
End the Third-Party Event Shenanigans Too
The same principle should apply when government acts through somebody else.
Georgia courts have held that a county cannot ban firearms at its own recreation facilities merely because local officials want a different rule.
The Georgia Supreme Court has also supplied the property test for private entities using publicly owned land: the key question is who holds the present estate. If the public entity retains it, the property does not become private merely because a private organization is using it. If the private entity actually holds the present estate, the analysis is different.
That matters at temporary festivals and concerts in public parks. Georgia has already seen a major music festival on public land return with a no-weapons policy and airport-style screening while gun-rights advocates disputed its authority to exclude lawful carriers.
A city should not be able to do indirectly through a promoter, renter, permittee or security contractor what state law forbids it from doing directly. If government retains the present estate, it should not be able to authorize the same restriction and then say, “We didn’t ban guns. The private promoter did.”
Any rewrite should preserve the rights of a private entity that truly holds the present estate through a valid estate-for-years interest and therefore has an independent property right to exclude weapons. But where the public entity retains the present estate, state firearms law and preemption must control.
Kemp Identified the Defect
Kemp's concern about rank-and-file officers is legitimate. A patrol officer working a gate should not become the personal financial target for a policy chosen by elected officials or other final policymakers.
But the decision-makers should not be untouchable.
There is a drafting wrinkle. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes absolute civil immunity for local legislators performing legitimate legislative acts, and Georgia courts have applied that principle. Georgia law also recognizes personal liability in some circumstances for municipal officers acting without authority of law.
So do not simply write, “Every council member who votes for a bad ordinance owes $25,000.” Keep the enhanced damages against the public entity, protect employees performing nondiscretionary duties, and create a separate personal civil penalty for officials with final executive or administrative authority who knowingly continue an unlawful policy after clear notice.
That penalty should also reach officials who knowingly authorize, approve, ratify, or permit the continued enforcement of a prohibited restriction by a private event operator on public property.
What the 2027 Fix Could Say
Keep SB 204's storage language, injunction remedy, $25,000 entity damages, attorney fees and one-year limitation. Then tighten the remedy section and add an anti-evasion provision.
Drafting concept - for Legislative Counsel to refine:
(g)(2) A civil action against the public entity when such individual suffers personal, property, or economic damage and recover the greater of: (A) actual damages or $25,000.00, whichever is greater, plus expenses of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees; or (B) liquidated damages of three times the expenses of litigation and reasonable attorney's fees.
(g)(3) Any elected or appointed public officer with final executive or administrative authority over enforcement of the challenged measure who, after written notice from the Attorney General or a court order determining that the measure violates this Code section, knowingly and willfully directs, authorizes, ratifies, or permits its continued enforcement, directly or through a private person or entity, shall be personally liable for a civil penalty of $5,000.00 for a first violation and $10,000.00 for each subsequent violation.
(g)(4) No law-enforcement officer or other public employee shall be personally liable under paragraph (3) solely for carrying out a nondiscretionary enforcement duty unless that person possesses final executive or administrative authority and personally directs or authorizes continued enforcement.
(g)(5) A public entity shall not indemnify or reimburse a public officer for a personal civil penalty imposed under paragraph (3).
(i)(1) No public entity shall authorize, direct, approve, contract for, or knowingly permit a private person or entity, including an event organizer, promoter, contractor, permittee, licensee, renter, or security provider, to impose or enforce a restriction concerning the possession, carrying, transportation, or storage of firearms or other weapons on property in which the public entity holds the present estate when the public entity itself would be prohibited from imposing such restriction under this Code section.
(i)(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply when the private person or entity holds the present estate in the property and possesses an independent right under state law to exclude weapons from such property.
(i)(3) A restriction imposed or enforced in violation of paragraph (1) shall be deemed an act of the public entity for purposes of the remedies provided by subsection (g).
That keeps the $25,000 remedy against government, protects rank-and-file officers, creates a personal consequence for officials controlling continued enforcement after clear notice, and prevents government from handing the gate to a promoter and disclaiming responsibility.
Bring It Back as a Clean Bill
SB 204 began as a criminal-procedure bill before a House substitute added the firearms-preemption provisions. In 2027, this issue should stand on its own.
Introduce a clean firearms-preemption enforcement bill early. Add storage. Preserve meaningful damages and attorney fees. Make the public entity answer for third-party restrictions it authorizes on property where it retains the present estate. Protect officers who did not make the policy. Then place carefully drafted personal penalties on officials who knowingly keep an unlawful restriction alive after notice.
Kemp has already said he supports stronger monetary penalties and that they should be aimed at the leaders responsible for the policy rather than officers tasked with enforcing it.
Comments
Post a Comment