The Georgia Attorney General is once again attempting to intervene over the City of Savannah’s gun ordinance that punishes victims of crime.
The Attorney General’s Office announced Monday that the state has filed a brief in a lawsuit over the city’s ‘attempt to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.’
Ordinance
In April 2024, the Savannah City Council passed two ordinances: “Report of Theft or Loss of a Firearm, Rifle, or Shotgun” (Section 9-1027) and “Secured Storage of Firearms, Rifles, and Shotguns in Parked Vehicles”(Section 9-1028).
- Section 9-1027 requires the owner of a firearm that is lost or stolen to report the loss or theft to the Savannah Police Department within 24 hours
- Section 9-1028(a) requires every person who possesses a firearm within a vehicle to store such firearm in a glove compartment, console, locked trunk or area behind the last upright seat in a vehicle when the vehicle is unoccupied.
- Section 9-1028(b) requires every person with a firearm in a vehicle to ensure the firearm is not visible at any time when the vehicle is unoccupied.
- Section 9-1028(c) requires every person with a firearm in a vehicle to ensure that all doors and hatches are locked when the vehicle is unoccupied
Violations of the ordinance come with a fine of up to $1,000 and 30 days in jail.
In April 2024, Mayor Van Johnson said the ordinance would be enforced on a case-by-case basis, as reported by WSAV. “We’re going to enforce as we investigate … if there are failures in the investigation process, we might charge kind of like what we do with accidents to determine fault or determine negligence.”
Lawsuit
Deacon Morris is suing the city, alleging that the ordinance is unlawful under Georgia’s firearm preemption law. He was cited for a violation of Section 9-1028(c) in August 2024 by the Savannah Police Department. On October 28, 2024, the Chatham County Recorder’s Court called the case, and Savannah orally announced it would enter a nolle prosequi and give Morris a warning. While the city ultimately decided not to pursue the charges against Morris, fees and costs were incurred to address the “illegal ordinance” and its enforcement, the suit says.
The suit specifically seeks to have the ordinance “declared void and unenforceable, on the grounds that the ordinance is preempted by state law, the Georgia Constitution, and is ultra vires, and to recover damages incurred as a result of Defendant’s enforcement of this law.”
Named in the suit is Mayor Van Johnson and the City Alderman and notes that the city has “no power to enact the ordinance” and that it’s a violation of the Georgia Constitution.
You can read more about the suit by Morris here.
State of Georgia Files Amicus Brief
In May 2024, the Attorney General’s Office sent a letter to City officials explaining that such ordinances directly conflict with and are preempted by State law, which expressly prohibits local governments from regulating the possession, transport, or carrying of firearms.
Despite the Attorney General’s recommendation that the City take immediate action to rescind the approval of the flawed ordinances – warning of potential civil liability – the City refused to do so. The lawsuit, in which the Attorney General has now filed a brief, soon followed.
In the brief filed Monday, the Attorney General urged the Court to “invalidate the City’s firearm ordinances.”
“This misguided attempt to punish law-abiding Georgians does absolutely nothing to address crime, and it won’t hold up in Court,” the Georgia Attorney General said. “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.”
From the brief filed by the Georgia Attorney General:
“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.” Hudgins, 193 Ga. at 623–24.”
You can read the full Amicus Brief below.
