2019-20 - SB 281 Dangerous Instrumentalities and Practices; poss of auto and semi-automatic guns

Discussion in 'Current Bills' started by BG_Atl, Dec 12, 2019.

  1. BG_Atl

    BG_Atl Active Member

    2,161
    18
    38
    2019-2020 Regular Session - SB 281 Dangerous Instrumentalities and Practices; possession of automatic and semi-automatic guns; prohibit; revise and provide definitions (PF)
    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/SB/281


    Sponsored By
    (1) James, Donzella 35th

    Committees
    SC: HC:

    First Reader Summary
    PF: A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16, Code Section 15-11-2, and Code Section 20-2-1184 of the O.C.G.A., relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices, definitions regarding the Juvenile Code, and reporting of students committing prohibited acts, respectively, so as to prohibit the possession of automatic and semi-automatic guns;to subject all transfers or purchases of firearms at gun shows to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; to provide for facilitation by licensed dealers; to provide for requirements for the securing or storage of inventory firearms when a dealer is not open for business; to conform cross-references; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
    Status History
    Dec/04/2019 - Senate Prefiled
     
  2. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    Unless I'm not reading this correctly, something appears to be missing in this definition.
    Some dealers won't be happy with her proposed storage rules.
     

  3. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,815
    820
    113
    Someone does not know anything about firearm operation.

    And I think I mentioned a bit back gun control action would be getting started down there. Start recruiting and organizing.

    Nemo
     
  4. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    6,031
    160
    63
    They file this crap every year. Poorly worded bills that lack a fundamental knowledge of the subject matter. This bill is DOA and will not go anywhere except the scrap heap. The Senator can now claim she filed a AWB and Normal Capacity Magazine ban for her reelection. More to come I'm sure.

    Notice........no co-sponsors.

    Creates a 5 year Felony for possession of a normal capacity 15 round Glock 19 magazine. Think about that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
    Scout706 likes this.
  5. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,815
    820
    113
    Do more than think.

    Nemo
     
  6. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,793
    316
    83
    Yup - and somehow the media lets them get away with this crap and never calls them out on their obviously flawed legislation as plain and simple vote pandering.
     
  7. A. McClure

    A. McClure Well-Known Member

    2,115
    128
    63
    It won't go anywhere.......this time. But the legislature is shifting blue. Last election, democrats gained 11 House seats. Several more GOP seats in the suburbs are definitely in play. If just the House switches hands to a democrat majority, that alone won't help bills like this, it would still die in the Senate (which also saw a seat or 2 go to Democrats- Hunter Hill's for one, but he was never a 2A ally anyway), and Kemp would certainly veto. However, it only takes one chamber or the other going blue to end our advancements as well. That is why this coming session is so very critical. Some want to lay low and wait to see if the democrat take-over in the House can be avoided by NOT passing any pro gun bills (metro and suburb GOP are terrified to see a 2A bill come up). Others, like me, are adamant that there will be no better time to get something thru the House than NOW. The risk is too great by NOT passing a bill. If they roll the dice and sit on their hands and the chamber flips, we lose any hope of advancement for a long, long time.
     
    TimBob likes this.
  8. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,231
    846
    113
    We hope.

    A very long time.
     
  9. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    The legislature and the Governor aren't the end of the line. Grievous laws can be challenged in the courts.
     
  10. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,494
    600
    113
    Georgia won't go Democrat if every single patriot gets out and votes. We lost seats in the House because of laziness and complacency.

    The Republicans had better figure out a way to fire up their base.

    Pandering to the left won't do it. Boldness will.
     
    A. McClure likes this.
  11. A. McClure

    A. McClure Well-Known Member

    2,115
    128
    63
    Absolutely agreed. Just ask those gun owners in Virginia. That could very well be us here in Georgia in another cycle or two, it is a very distinct possibility.
     
  12. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    So does Dumbzilla not really want to ban semi automatic guns but rather only ban machine guns? Or does she think that all semi automatic guns could also fire automatically-- it's just that we don't often flip the selector lever to that 'group therapy' position?

    The way this is worded this is not a ban on semi automatic guns --it's a ban on machine guns. But the new Georgia definition of the term "semi automatic" gun will actually mean a machine gun.
    -------------

    Just like in New York State the term "firearm" actually means concealable handgun or sawed-down rifle or shotgun.
     
  13. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    I don't agree with that. His bill has an exemption for NFA registered weapons. I believe Donzella wants to include regular semi-automatics (in addition to SBSs and SBRs) under NFA purview. But part (B) of the definition in post #2 doesn't apply to any kind of firearm. No firearm of any type will function like that.
     
  14. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    The bill says if you don't need to take any action to make the gun fire consecutive shots, then it is one of these restricted weapons.

    The word "consecutive" as used here, in context, means after the first shot has just been fired. This is the legislature's retarded way of saying

    " if you continue to hold the trigger back after taking the first shot and the gun shoots even one more time, it's restricted under this law."

    You are correct that this bill does not eliminate the exception for persons who have legally registered their weapons under the national firearms act with ATF.

    (And "if" this new Georgia law did restrict semi automatics, that would be a problem because I don't think the feds would allow you to register a semi automatic gun under the provisions of the national firearms act.)
     
  15. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    There's an "or" not an "and" between (A) and (B) in the definition I quoted. No gun, of any type, can physically function under (B). It says the only action required to make the gun fire is to have ammunition in it. Theoretically you should be able to just stare at your gun and make it fire. Or maybe, those are the guns that cops use. You know, the ones that "just go off by themselves."
     
  16. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    Moe, you can leave fantasyland behind and come back to the real world now. Nobody involved in the legal system or criminal justice system will interpret the law the crazy way that you have just claimed that you read it.

    Every cop, every judge, every prosecutor, every justice on the Supreme Court will understand what the "B" definition means --it is clearly implied that pulling the trigger once is a condition precedent and then the gun's performsnce after that shall be evaluated under the sub paragraph "B."

    There are rules of statutory construction (interpretation) and one says you shall not read the law in a ridiculous way to make it meaningless or absurd, not if there is a reasonable way to read the words so that the law makes sense and furthers the purpose of the law (addresses the harm or risk the law is intended to mitigate).
     
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    I didn't develop English grammatical usage. Show me in (B) where it's implied that pulling the trigger is a precedent condition. It isn't. Donzella's definition is absurd.

    "And" means something plus something. Each "thing" is dependent on the others.

    "Or" means either this or that. Each "thing" is independent of the others.
     
  18. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    The intention of the legislature is the cardinal guide to construction of statutes and, when plainly collected, should be carried into effect, though contrary to the literal sense of terms.
    [my emphasis added] Erwin v. Moore, 15 Ga. 361 (Supreme Court of Georgia).

    Cited favorably & quoted in
    Oxford v. Carter
    216 Ga. 821 (1961) (Supreme Court of Georgia).
     
  19. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    If the legislature wants to make laws that apply to the citizenry - but not themselves, of course - then write them in a manner where the citizenry can clearly understand them without having to resort to interpreters to explain the laws in English instead of ridiculous legalspeak. Bunch of asswipes.
     
  20. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,622
    1,707
    113
    Words and constructs have meaning in any language. It's how the people communicate amongst themselves. Language is a major theme in Orwell's 1984 novel. Newspeak's abuse of the language is to mislead the people and mask the truth. And we're getting there more and more everyday. Was Orwell prescient? Or are our "leaders" just illiterate buffoons?