Judge dismisses lawsuit against Savannah's gun regulation ordinance
- A lawsuit challenging a Savannah ordinance imposing penalties for leaving guns in unlocked cars was dismissed by a Georgia judge.
- The ordinance, enacted by Savannah city officials, aims to reduce firearm theft incidents reported from unlocked cars.
- The ruling raises questions about local governments' authority to regulate firearms amidst state laws supporting gun rights.
In Georgia, a recent court ruling has impacted the enforcement of a city ordinance aimed at gun safety. On November 22, 2024, Chatham County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Karpf dismissed a lawsuit filed by gun owner Clarence Belt, who sought to challenge an ordinance in Savannah that imposes fines and potential jail time for leaving guns in unlocked vehicles. The ordinance, unanimously passed by the Savannah city council in April 2024, was established in response to increasing incidents of gun theft, with over 200 firearms reported stolen from unlocked cars in 2023 alone. The dismissal of the case did not address the main argument that the Savannah ordinance contradicts Georgia state law prohibiting local governments from setting regulations on firearms. Instead, the ruling was based on the claim that Belt, being a non-resident of Savannah and not having received any citations under the ordinance, lacked the legal standing to sue. Belt's attorney contended that the ordinance unfairly targets gun owners by requiring them to lock their vehicles, which poses particular challenges for individuals with disabilities, as was the case with Belt, who struggles with mobility issues. Savannah officials, including Mayor Van Johnson, argue that the ordinance aims to enhance public safety by regulating the storage of firearms to prevent theft. Their position is that the law does not infringe on the rights of individuals to own or carry firearms but rather mandates responsible gun ownership practices. In a letter addressed to Savannah leaders, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr warned that enforcing such a local ordinance could lead to civil liability due to the state's prevailing stance against local firearm regulations. This ruling signifies potential challenges for city officials who attempt to navigate gun regulation in a state with strong legislative support for gun rights. The success of the ordinance, in terms of reducing gun theft, remains to be seen as legal uncertainties linger, and advocates for gun owners threaten further legal action. Whether Clarence Belt will appeal the decision is still unclear, though the conversation surrounding local government's ability to impose specific regulations on firearms continues to evolve amid differing interpretations of state laws.