Bill to Confiscate Assault Weapons Is Expected for the 2017 Georgia Legislative Session
Thursday evening, State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver announced in a Facebook post that she plans to re-introduce legislation that would make certain guns illegal in Georgia, and require their confiscation.
I am hopeful, and will continue to press for a rational discussion on ways to curb the 33,000 deaths per year from gun violence. The Courts are addressing and enforcing assault weapon bans in other states, and the debate will continue, and I want Georgia to be part of the discussion. I INTEND TO FILE AGAIN, FOR THE 2017 SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A BILL TO BAN ASSAULT TYPE WEAPONS, and whether you support or not the proposal, I hope you will join me in asking for an open, rational and bipartisan debate on gun violence deaths and how to reduce senseless killing. Thank you for your interest.
During the 2016 session, Rep, Oliver held a press conference to announce support for her bill. House Speaker David Ralston quickly announced that the bill would not be considered by the House.
About Author
Jon Richards
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It was a bad bill this year and it will be a bad bill in 2017. It goes further than the 2015 democrat bill in congress which at least has a “grandfather provision.” Oliver’s 2016 bill has no such provision.
Sigh…
What Australia Did To Prevent Mass Shootings, And How The U.S. Could Learn
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/06/16/australia-gun-lessons
“‘If more guns made us safer, the U.S. would be the safest nation in the world.’ You are not; you are 10 to 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA per capita than Australia.”
That statement shows a misunderstanding of one of the purposes of owning firearms. Firearms don’t make us safe. They allow us to protect ourselves in an already unsafe situation.
Didn’t read the article, did you?
Yes. I did. It didn’t help your pull quote’s case any.
Again, its not about feeling safe. It’s about providing for your own protection. Why don’t you think that is an inalienable right?
“Why shouldn’t we require a would-be gun owner to take similar testing?” Because possessing firearms is protected by the constitution. Driving, as my father often reminded me, is a privilege. Apples and Oranges.
Rights should be protected instead of constantly attacked. It is an unreasonable leap of logic to say that since a radical Muslim shot a bunch of people that I should have restrictions placed on my right.
+1000!
“Rights should be protected instead of constantly attacked. It is an unreasonable leap of logic to say that since a radical Muslim shot a bunch of people that I should have restrictions placed on my right.”
You ‘da man!
So Blake, does this mean that I can count on you to voice your opinion against voter ID, and other such laws that work to infringe on peoples’ right to vote??
How does knowing who you are infringe on your right to vote? I have to prove who I am to buy a firearm and a thousand other transactions.
Georgia requires a license for concealed weapons, no license is required for long guns, bows, etc. Define what you think constitutes reasonable “similar testing”. Some of us resist proposals such as yours because there is so little detail and allows subjectivity for those of us to seriously consider changing the State’s Constitution or the O.C.G.A.
You are aware that South Carolina does require training prior to granting a concealed weapons permit – the statistics reviewed 3 sessions ago showed the accidental shootings and intentional shootings to be close to States that do not require testing by a State licensed trainer?
Training, testing, and bans have not stopped murders since Genesis 4 verse 8. So tell us how this will work so we can understand yours, or other’s plans.
People driving while texting is a much more dangerous situation. Yet taking guns is a democrat goal.
Just damn, Drew.
Sometimes you don’t choose your situations. I posted this on PP years ago but here’s a recap. I lived on a dead end street as a child. The street dead ended in our drive way. OK. One night, circa 1988, a car comes screaming down out driveway at 2am. Goes off the driveway and into the back yard, get mired up in wet grass. My dad 66 years old with 90% occlusions in his heart arteries, (he’s passed away three months later..) grabs his gun, throws on a robe goes into the backyard where the car is still spinning. Dad hears sirens in the neighborhood and suspects this car is being chased by law enforcement. Calmly walks up to the car, points the gun at the passenger side window and tells them to stop. They look all bug-eyed and stomp on the gas once more. Dad shoots out the back tire. The passenger opens the door and one guy runs. By that time a sheriff’s car had come up and, to quote Dad, “a fat little deputy” ran huffing up while Dad held the driver in the car. Dad asked, “Am I gonna have any problem with this?” Meaning firing his gun…The deputy said ‘Hell no!!!!” They caught the guy that ran and took the other maggot into custody. Found out later the were drug issues with perps.
“If you frequently find yourself in situations where you feel that you need a gun in order to feel “safe,” you should really reevaluate some of your life choices.”
Cmon, Andrew! Sometimes the real world intervenes.
Because a nearly 30 year old anecdote is the authority enough…..
30 years or 40, it was an actual event. Just curious, how would you have handled that same situation, Dave?
Fun for your Friday…
Sorry…wrong section. Enjoy anyway…
Well, no snark, Drew, but in this one instance, this Dem DOES want to take our guns away…Please have more lawmaking morons like her keep speaking; we’ll have guns for the next thousand years! I can see the NRA fund raising off of this dips**t for the next year!
Welcome to our (conservative’s) world.
Jon’s report states in the 2nd paragraph the bill would require “confiscation” of “assault weapons”. Any insight how the State of Georgia would go about “confiscating” weapons that are yet to be defined as “assault weapons”? I’m trying to picture if the conversation includes the State going to court to get some sort of writ to enter a business, home, car, property to confiscate “assault weapons”.
She defines “assault weapon” in the bill (HB731). Presumably the “confiscation” would come via arrest and/or search warrant. Her bill does give a grace period where gun owners could modify their weapons or turn them into GBI (see sections 16-11-116 16-11-117).
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/154275.pdf
WOW!!! The ammunition I use for hog, elk, deer, etc. hunting in my bolt action rifle falls into that bill.
State had better begin expanding the prison system for a new class of felon formally known as law abiding citizens.
At the risk of getting hunted down and lectured into submission, why are some ‘reasonable’ items not expectable for the gun lobby? Example, flagging (not stopping) people on watch lists – like people awaiting trial for violent crimes or who have restraining orders out, or FBI person of interest/known associate tags? Why can’t we mandate tracer elements in ammo (like the auto industry does for paint)? Flag the purchase of large quantities of ammo (like they do with large amounts of fertilizer). Even basic funding for research. Some of Johns Hopkins’ privately funded research (a small percentage mind you) has gone in the gun lobbies favor. None of this involves stopping you from having a gun.
Yes I know it could be looked at as ‘restricting’ your rights and so forth. Yet you can’t yell fire in a crowed room, you can’t slander a person, you can’t lie under oath, nor can you artistically paint a nude minor (sexual exploitation of a minor) under the rights of freedom of speech. Having more then one spouse and human sacrifices are not legal under right to practice religion last I looked either.
What can both sides live with?
Even many reasonable constraints to the 2nd bring out the slippery slope arguments. Any legislation starting with confiscation in the argument is a complete non-starter.
Her bill only deals with possession, not background checks but yes we do need to broaden and change the firearm purchase process. One obvious change is to eliminate the FBI three day “default proceed” policy. The problem (as always) is that while increased background checks may stop or slow a few criminals most will still obtain a firearm.
I’m not agreeing with Rep. Oliver. What you need to ask is how she got to that point (besides the snarky answers of being a tree hugging rose colored glasses, bleeding heart liberal). People tend to over react and over reach in a gut reaction when absolutely nothing is allowed to occur. It’s human nature. You want to slow down the far reaching right/left for suggesting extremely stupid and crazy measures to any bill, then the opposing far reaching right/left needs to stop shutting down every thing that any reasonable and sane person would agree to. Your not going to stop the crazy, but you prevent the middle from listening to them when you do nothing. This applied to not only guns, but any item up for debate or government measure. For decades the pro gun lobby has shut down anything that is related to a firearm. doesn’t mater that it doesn’t stop a person from owning a gun. Having mandatory seat belt in a car doesn’t prevent a person from driving but it does lead few deaths and less injuries in a car then it causes. Smart guns don’t prevent a person from exercising their full 2nd amendment rights but it does prevent a gun thief or a child from firing the thing regardless of the pro gun agruement that would prevent a second person from using a discarded smart gun for protection in an emergency. Thus nothing is done, so the crazy’s over reach. People over reached on the protection of phones, financial, health records and privacy rights, so when a terrorists exploits these civil liberties, the opposing side goes off the deep end because ‘reasonable’ measures were rejected in the name of all or nothing.
As long as we have a ‘either for or against it ‘mentality with no areas of grey, the crazies’ will put out unrealistic bills that will keep becoming click bait to be held up as proof that the other side is 100% right and wholly justified.
Extreme bills don’t accomplish anything positive. I actually agree with Pope on his point that this bill just feeds the narrative that Dems want to take their guns away.
i think the whole “slippery slope” arguments are bogus. a law doesn’t have to be created as a slope.
same-sex marriage does not slide to inter-species marriage. you build the backstops into the law.
and the whole 2nd Amendment is inviolable argument is just simpleton talk. as if the 2nd amendment- or any amendment- is free of ambiguities and impervious to modern interpretation. thus, my thought has always been that the militia clause oft he 2nd amendment must somehow be meaningful- it can not be mere surplusage. therefore, weapons could easily be considered subject to either the first clause of the amendment (militia-grade) or the 2nd cause (personal right). i don’t know much abt the nuts and bolts of guns, like what an “assuault weapon” is, but others can figure that out. put the AK’s and AR’s into militia regulation. you can have ’em, but the government will know who you are, in every way they can, and know where those guns are. and their use will be legally limited; i.e. you can’t just walk round with one. that way, in the event that we need another revolutionary war, or are invaded a la Red Dawn, militias will still serve their purpose. but their purchase would bring a lot of scrutiny, along with being in collaboration with a registered militia (such that other militia members would also provide peer-based scrutiny). maybe that’s enough to deter the common/casual use of military-grade weapons.
The.grabbers/sieze-ers/restrict-ers/will.never.stop….Ever. Thank God the NRA has the juice to politically obliterate any pol who tries.
yes, some things should be restricted. so radical? that is the nature of human cohabitation on this planet.
Heck, somewhere around 33,000 a year die in Georgia’s abortion mills. Maybe 1 million or so nationwide. at last check, the 1 million or so there is far above the 33,000 gun deaths per year in this country, yet which gets the most attention from the liberals?
Another discussion of Gun rights/ Gun control going into the weeds. The thing that will eventually cause this to shift is the rights inability to compromise. Demographics, values, and strongly held beliefs shift over time, but todays ‘conservatives’ know only how to turn hard right. This won’t last-it just remains to be seen how long it will take. It’s starting to change a little already after this last incident…so the cracks are showing.
What better way for democrats to fund their goals then gun control. Following the history of the prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs they realize its a rich money making bonanza to have gun control.
The black market that would be created will funnel checks to them in off shore accounts.
Those arrested and thrown in prison for owning guns are the very people they hate the most.
Democrats have wet dreams about gun control, using the deaths of 50 people in Orlando is exciting to them. As you can see they are exploiting the situation. But look at what they have to gain. So much money to be made and getting rid of pesky republican voters.
Andrew: Did you happen to read todays WSJ “Why Does the IRS need Guns?” by Tom Coburn
While the democrats have been buying record amount of AK-47 guns and bullets for government departments, then they turn around and want to take guns from people who want to protect their families.
“We still have groups of people who don’t feel safe in this country.”
Indeed…in places like Chicago (almost 3,000 shootings last year), the southwest side of Atlanta (where daily shootings are almost routine), south DeKalb, the south side of Augusta, the north side of Charlotte, west Philadelphia, the east and south sides of Richmond, Hartford, St. Louis…but because the culprits in those crimes do not fit the liberal bogeyman stereotype–like a Klan supporter or ISIS—well, they don’t get the stinging rebukes from the holier than thou liberals on Capitol Hill, like the Chuck Schumers, Chris Murphys and company.
“Decades of cyclical poverty and institutionalized racism that are underpinning of violence in America inner cities.” So no personal responsibility, eh? Crime is all society’s fault? Like “the devil made me do it?” Maybe Tom Sowell had a point when he said that crime causes poverty, and not the other way around……..and I never said there is no coverage of shootings in SW Atlanta. anymore than there is no coverage in the crime-ridden areas south of Augusta’s 15th Street, but it seems like so much of the focus of the Al Sharptons of the world are relatively few bad apples in the police department and not enough on the career criminals terrorizing their areas. The late Regency Mall in Augusta on the southside is an example of what happens when crime goes unchecked—probably too Underground Atlanta 150 miles to the west.
I’d like to add to Clinton’s position that those being looked at by the FBI should not get a gun permit, nor be allowed to run for an elected office, especially POTUS.
There are different ways I would do this. I would ban the sale and importation into the state of all weapons whose sole purpose is to inflict mass casualties such as anything like ar-15’s (I am not an expert on assault rifles, but I’m sure some of you know enough you could help better define that). I would also ban any clips that hold more than 5 rounds.
I would not confiscate anything. That just feeds the crazy.
Instead, I would require anyone owning one of the banned weapons to register it by law, and to also report any that are stolen within a reasonable (24-48hrs seems good) amount of time. They would also not be eligible for resale within the state.
I also would offer a FMV buy back for any owner that wants to be rid of the damn thing.
I think that sounds very reasonable. Again, its all in the definition of what is an assault rifle…and I admit other than the AR-15 and similar…I dont know.
What else than an assault weapon could slow a mob of looters in a store after a curfue and when the police aren’t up for it ?
My guess is you’d end up in jail for using it since you’d never be able to prove they were all looting, and other than that, if thats the best you got…you dont have much, huh.
Oh, and when was that last riot in Atlanta that involved looting?
Riot ? More likely, Looters in store after curfue/closing: smash and grab
Groups destroying stores after hours or during curfews: Google that one.
I wouldn’t include the Walmart and store instances like the one last year in Macon as a time for an assault gun as customers were present they needed armed guards or good insurance.
Only takes the rare occasion to get a point across, good or bad.
At least you didnt say it was to protect yourself from the government…thats a plus for you
First choice is the government to protect me and my property after a major weather event too, but that is not always the situation.