A Georgia judge has ruled that Savannah’s city ordinance prohibiting firearms in unlocked vehicles is unconstitutional, dismissing the case against a man cited for violating the law. The ruling by Chatham County Recorder’s Court Judge Brian Joseph Huffman Jr. declared the ordinance ‘void and unenforceable,’ stating it violates state law and the Second Amendment. The decision is likely limited to the case of Clayton Papp, who challenged the ordinance as part of his criminal defense.
Clayton Papp was cited by Savannah police for violating the ordinance, which imposes fines and possible jail time for leaving guns in unlocked cars, in August 2024. His attorney requested the judge to dismiss the citation, arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The ruling is expected to only apply to Papp’s case, as the challenge was raised as part of a criminal defense rather than a broader lawsuit seeking to halt enforcement of the ordinance.
Savannah’s mayor, Democrat Van Johnson, stated that the city will continue to enforce the rule, emphasizing its role in reducing firearm thefts from unlocked vehicles. Johnson cited a decrease in reported stolen guns from over 200 in 2023 to less than 100 this year as evidence of the ordinance’s effectiveness. Proponents argue that the law would help prevent criminals from accessing firearms, despite the state’s broader laws allowing easier gun ownership and carrying.
The judge’s ruling highlighted the tension between public safety concerns and constitutional rights. He noted that while the intent to prevent firearm thefts is valid, the law must withstand constitutional scrutiny. This decision adds to a series of recent rulings on gun rights, including the federal appeals court’s approval of Illinois restrictions on carrying guns on public transit and the blocking of New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period for gun purchases.
Georgia Republican Attorney General Chris Carr praised the ruling, calling it a victory for law-abiding gun owners. However, legal experts suggest the city may still enforce the ordinance, leaving it to individual defendants to raise constitutional claims in future cases. A separate lawsuit aimed at halting the ordinance was dismissed in 2024, with the judge ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing.