Rep-elect Files Four Bills to Lift Gun Carry Restrictions

December 21, 2012 11:47 am

by Bridget Cantrell · 65 comments

Yikes – I’m still sorting how I feel about my new representative.  I thought it was pretty cool that someone my age could unseat a seasoned representative with a massive warchest; it gave me hope that activists could actually effect change.  He’s in the headlines today….and I think it’s a little much, too soon :/  Emotions are still simply too raw over Newtown.

Alas, here’s the story:

An incoming freshman House Republican from Kennesaw has become the first since the Connecticut shootings to propose an expansion of gun rights in Georgia.

State Rep.-elect Charles Gregory, who campaigned heavily on the Second Amendment and limited government power, filed four gun bills this week at the Capitol that would sweep away any restrictions on carrying firearms in Georgia — including on college campuses and in churches.

House Bills 26, 27, 28 and 29 would declare that “evil resides in the heart of the individual, not in material objects,” and would also bar the governor from suspending gun sales during an emergency.

Sure, Rep-elect Gregory will get plenty of earned media over this.  We see you – congrats.  The victims aren’t even buried; the parents of those babies likely still see wrapped presents for their kindergartener sitting under the tree every time they walk into the living room.

For reference, I own multiple handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun.  I also have a concealed weapon permit.  Yes, I’d be that citizen in the news for taking matters into my hands during an emergency.

Your timing could’ve been better.  This isn’t who we are in Cobb County.  Merry Christmas, sir.

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Well I don’t know the new Rep, but since the president started the debate on gun rights, your Rep just answered.

CT has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and it didn’t stop this tragedy. I believe it actually aided the shooter.

Chris Huttman December 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Unlike Arizona or Colorado, which I’m sure have less restrictive gun laws.

I wonder if the Republicans will have a similar change of heart on birth control and morning after pills. Birth control and morning after pills don’t kill unborn babies, the people who take them do.

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Aurora, CO has a law against carrying, and the theater also had a no guns sign.

And in Arizona an armed citizen ran to the scene but got there as soon as it was over.

Both of those cases though had the mental issue, that folks had addressed in different, but not complete ways that could have made a difference.

Chris Huttman December 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Wrong. The armed observer in Arizona chose not to fire (correctly) because he deduced that it would have done more damage than not doing it. And had he shot he would have shot the person who wrestled the gun away (Without themselves personally having a gun).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.UNSfgaywEdU

Look – part of this country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That should be compatible with someone like me (and the majority of citizens) who wish to pursue those pursuits without having to carry a gun on me or send my kid to an elementary school with armed guards waiting at the door.

What don’t you get about that?

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Joe Zamudio made the right decision yes.

I want you to “Look”…. look at the Bill of Rights. I have the same rights as you, why must you take away one of my rights?

If you don’t want to have armed guards at school then allow someone to at least be armed there. If you had your way and the guns were rounded up, do you think they will all be collected? If you don’t want to carry a gun fine, but the minute you disarm me or someone else , you may well wish we had one if an evil person decides to bring his gun and exert force upon you and me.

Chris Huttman December 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm

So, riddle me this. Amendment 1 – free speech. Yet I can’t go into a crowded theater and shout “FIRE”, even though by a strict reading of the Constitution this should be protected by Amendment 1.

But anyone can go in with a machine gun and light the place up. Thanks Amendment 2 – we certainly can’t do anything that might by contrary to what the most extreme possible reading of it says, now can we?

Daddy Got A Gun December 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm

The equivalence you are seeking is …. Yelling fire = waving a gun around. Both panic people, meant to spread fear, and put them at risk.

Neither the word “fire” or the carrying of a gun is dangerous or illegal in of themselves. But if they are used wrong, then either one would be illegal.

Equivalence for both in a lawful fashion would be …. speaking your mind to someone = bearing arms for self-defense. Neither should be infringed by government.

Another equivalence for both would be ….. screaming fire if there was really a fire = shooting someone who is committing a violent felony.

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm

What form of logic are you using? How exactly does the 2A give me the right to murder?

Noway December 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm

MP, are you saying defending the life of a person being victimized by a violent felon is murder?

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Noway, Chris Huttman said that the 2A allows “… anyone can go in with a machine gun and light the place up.”

I was responding to that line of “thought.”

Noway December 21, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Oh ok.

Daddy Got A Gun December 21, 2012 at 2:05 pm

You don’t have to carry. Nobody is forcing you. Plus, you don’t have to let people with firearms onto your property. Nobody is forcing you too.

Here’s the best part for you. Crime rates fall when more people carry in more locations. Its a proven fact. You benefit from those crime reductions as well.

See this GeorgiaCarry.Org report showing how crimes rates have decreased since the passage of HB89. http://georgiacarry.com/research/GCO-Guns_Good_Bans_Bad.pdf

I’m actually with you against armed guards at schools. They are schools, not jails. Plus, armed guards have been a failure in these type of situations. Columbine had a school resource officer and he was there at the beginning of attack. In the Red Lake MN school attack, the first two people shot were the armed guards manning the metal detector.

The reason expanding carry rights reduces crime is because nobody knows which person has the gun. It could be that old lady there. Or that Reggae guy here. Because background checked Licensees are parents, teachers, and administrators, an Active Killer won’t know which one is carrying. He will go onto a different and easier target which success is more assured, usually a location where the law forbids carrying a firearm.

bowersville December 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm

No, the first two people shot in Red Lake MN were the shooter’s grandfather and the grandfather’s girl friend. One in the back and the other sleeping. Then the grandfather’s police cruiser, side arm and shoulder arm were taken to the school. When the shooter arrived at the school the shooter was confronted by an unarmed security officer. The UNARMED security officer was shot.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/

At Columbine everything failed. All of it. Police, civilians, school, media, lack of awareness…I could go on but you get the point. But since Columbine some things have changed. I’ll address one.

“…the final practical lesson of Columbine is a revolution in police response tactics. Cops followed the old book at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by the “active shooter protocol.”

You’ll cite Newtown, so will I. There was no resource officer trained for active shooter and I’ll cede there were no armed civilians. But let me help you frame the debate. Georgia is my interest but nationally the debate is gun control/2nd Amendment rights. In Georgia the debate is centered on whether to allow armed law enforcement around children in elementary schools. I’ll cite a few words from an AJC article.

“Whether a school should have armed officers should be up to the parents in its community, said Donna Kosicki, the president of the Georgia PTA.

That, she said, is why the Georgia PTA backs having local school boards make that call. Parents could make their views known to their local school board representatives, and they would set policy that would have community support.”

There is national blow back against even allowing trained law enforcement to carry weapons around elementary children and that blow back isn’t about police failure. It’s coming from resistance to anyone having guns around elementary schools. IMHO, there’s not a chance in h#ll that civilians with a permit will be allowed to carry at elementary schools. NONE. So if you want to continue the status quo, keep on downing the police.

freeduck December 22, 2012 at 11:48 pm

“See this GeorgiaCarry.Org report showing how crimes rates have decreased since the passage of HB89. http://georgiacarry.com/research/GCO-Guns_Good_Bans_Bad.pdf

That may be what the report is inferring but that isn’t what the data actually says. Georgia’s violent crime rate mirrors the national rate (as you can see further down in the same document) and was already on the decline from a 2006-2008 spike. The bill was passed in 2008, but a lot of things happened in 2008. By the logic of this paper, the election of Barack Obama caused a drop in violent crimes nationwide. The entire paper uses incredibly flawed analysis of the sort that would get a smack down in any statistics course — comparing crime rates per 100,000 to absolute dollars in gun sales and trying to draw a correlation is absurd. If I had the time and energy I would parody this paper using bubble gum sales to show how chewing gum reduces armed robbery. Be careful buying “data” pushed by those with such an obvious agenda.

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Chris Huttman, December 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm-

“Look – part of this country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That should be compatible with someone like me (and the majority of citizens) who wish to pursue those pursuits without having to carry a gun on me or send my kid to an elementary school with armed guards waiting at the door.”

I completely agree that ideally we should not have to carry guns or send our kids to an elementary school with armed guards at the door.

But this is the REAL WORLD where heavily-armed bad guys who more than 99 out of 100 times have obtained their high-powered weapons illegally don’t share our idyllic utopian values when they are trying to rob, maim and kill us for their personal pleasure.

Do you really think that the Latin American drug cartels, urban gangbangers and prowling armed robbers (stick-up kids, robbery crews, burglary crews, carjacking crews, etc) that freely roam the streets of American cities, not to mention the mentally deranged, really care or even give a rats a** about how you and other law-abiding citizens may be afraid of guns when they are robbing you at gunpoint for your cash and personal belongings, either out on the street, in your car or even in your house?

I knew guys that had fully-automatic AK 47’s and illegal Chinese-made M-16’s that switch from semi-automatic single-fire to fully-automatic rapid-fire during the height of the supposed Assault Weapons Ban between 1994 and 2004.

They liked to use those weapons to ring in the New Year by (dangerously) shooting them in the air.

Do you think that they care about your personal preference against firearms or assault weapons restrictions when they are illegally buying, possessing and using those weapons that are clearly illegal in most, if not virtually all, circumstances, government ban or no ban?

Chris Huttman December 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm

And game out if “everyone” is armed. Someone with a high capacity magazine can still conceal a weapon well enough to get to a very crowded place and get 30-40 shots off before the brave shooters in the wild are able to respond and take him out.

So that’s an acceptable outcome – we’ll just move the shootings from defenseless schoolrooms to mall food courts where you can still get the 30 or 40 shots off?

seenbetrdayz December 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm

“And game out if “everyone” is armed. Someone with a high capacity magazine can still conceal a weapon well enough to get to a very crowded place and get 30-40 shots off before the brave shooters in the wild are able to respond and take him out.”

How many times are we going to have to sit hear and here that same argument and yet not see it ever happen?

If the weatherman told you it was gonna be sunny for 7 days in a row, and you got wet 6 days that week, don’t you think some people would start wondering if it was time to wear a raincoat?

“Wild west”. “Crazy shootouts.” “Innocents cought in crossfire.”

It practically never happens.

—But situations where people sit huddled in a corner while an armed gunman has a field day with them? How many of those are we up to now? Anyone still keeping count?

Daddy Got A Gun December 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Good guys can also pack an Assault Weapon. I just got back from Christmas shopping and lunch with my daughter. On my hip, was my Glock 17 with 17+1 rounds, which configuration was formerly classified as an assault weapon. Did I have the urge to rob anyone or shoot them? No! A gun doesn’t make a killer.

As for the shootout scenario, most citizen-involved gun fights involved 3 or less rounds fired. Usually when you see a high round count, it is Law Enforcement or related to gang/drug activities.

seenbetrdayz December 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm

As for the shootout scenario, most citizen-involved gun fights involved 3 or less rounds fired. Usually when you see a high round count, it is Law Enforcement or related to gang/drug activities.

Or in situations where the shooter goes uncontested for, oh, say 20 minutes or so.

mpierce December 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm

I wonder if the Republicans will have a similar change of heart on birth control and morning after pills. Birth control and morning after pills don’t kill unborn babies, the people who take them do.

Since you find them equivalent, I assume you would support the government requiring my employer to pay for my guns? And I missed the Amendment giving me the right to carry morning after pills.

Chris Huttman December 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Bridget, excellent point about Cobb County, overall a pretty moderate place with a slight Republican tilt. The problem though is that Cobb County doesn’t vote in a Republican primary as whole, an extreme fringe does. And that’s the case everywhere.

I can’t imagine a single district in Georgia – maybe Ed Lindsay’s would be the exception, where a moderate Republican wouldn’t lose a primary if the right crazy issue lit a fire under the base.

And with the way Ed Lindsay has acted the last few years, I’m not sure even he thinks his district is immune. That’s sad. You guys may do well in Georgia for a few years longer, but the way things are shaping up you’re looking at a serious national political problem for some time. This is just the start, and people like Rep. Gregory aren’t helping that.

Harry December 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm

So you don’t think it’s a good idea for certain properly vetted and trained teachers to voluntarily carry concealed weapons in their classroom? I think that would be an excellent deterrent.

seenbetrdayz December 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Heck. This image pretty much sums it up:

Which of these signs is more likely to deter a criminal?

http://cdn.ammoland.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Pick-your-Sign.jpg

I’ll guess the one on the right.

Bob Loblaw December 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Wow. Would kind of make school feel like a Manchurian Prison Camp passing that sign everyday but I guess that’s where we are?

Or are we becoming those who are giving up liberty for security?

seenbetrdayz December 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm

I don’t think there’s any way around that. Unless you think that with metal detectors, barbed-fences, steel-reinforced doors, sirens, and a cop for every 10 cameras, people aren’t going to feel the same way.

seenbetrdayz December 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm

We can have all that but no guns. Guns are gonna make it feel like prison. . . . —oh wait. That can’t be right.

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Been to the airport lately?

Noway December 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Robert, Not sure if I read your thought right but it is the liberty of the second amendment that being chipped and stripped away at in the name of ‘security’ of those afraid of the lawful ownership and use of guns.

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm

In a society where an overwhelmingly vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that are unlawfully obtained and possessed.

…But somehow lawful ownership and use of guns is the problem. Go figure…

Bob Loblaw December 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm

I doubt the Representative he defeated, Judy Manning, Chair of the Children and Youth Committee, would have filed this bill this week, or any week.

Welcome, Rep.-Elect. Nice start. Cobb folks? Are you listening to Bridget?

Bridget December 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm

@Bob – does ANYone listen to Bridget? Besides my mom…it’s doubtful ;)

Bob Loblaw December 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm

@Bridg:

A lot of us apparently listen to you, as you spice up the AM reads very well. Your mom should read, too. On this issue, folks in Cobb should listen. The timing of these bills come in the face of national mourning.

David Staples December 23, 2012 at 10:51 pm

Something tells me these bills would have been filed at some point anyways. Whether now or a week or two from now… they’d still be filed. I’ve had a number of conversations over the last week or so with people telling me that all firearms should be confiscated and eliminated or that they should just be more regulated or that just semi-automatics should be outlawed (by people that didn’t even know what a semi-automatic is). I’m sorry that some people feel that now is not an appropriate time to start a conversation on gun policy. The fact is, the conversation is already happening. You can either choose to be part of it or you can choose to ignore it. The choice is up to the individual. As a Cobb resident with a Georgia Weapons Carry License who doesn’t live in Charles’ district, I’m happy that he supports our right to carry. I haven’t read the bills yet, but I hope other legislators will support these same ideals.

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 24, 2012 at 1:42 am

Mr. Staples, I completely agree.

I strongly object to any new restrictions to the legal purchase and legal possession of firearms and I agree with all of State Representative-elect Charles Gregory’s legislative proposals.

Bridget December 24, 2012 at 9:19 am

FTR: I didn’t say I disagreed with his proposals.

I disagree with him filing them before the victims are in the ground. It’s tacky and cold and meant to gain attention.

David Staples December 24, 2012 at 10:07 am

What about the pre-filing of the Carbon monoxide bill HB 23 just days after the incident at an Atlanta school – before some of the victims were possibly even out of the hospital?

As well, having actually read through the bills now – am I missing something or in regards to schools has he only filed a campus carry bill that would legalize carry on college campuses? I don’t see any bills legalizing carry on K-12 campuses. Nothing he has filed, from what I’ve seen (maybe I missed something), would have any impact on situations like what we saw in CT.

Ed December 24, 2012 at 10:18 am

+1

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 24, 2012 at 11:05 am

There’s not much disagreement with you that State Rep-elect Gregory’s timing in filing those bills is meant to gain him attention and further his political career in a community with a reputation for its staunch conservatism like Cobb County where any pro-gun legislation is instantly popular.

Although given that Gregory was likely taking a page out of the book of the controversial, but well-liked, late State Representative Bobby Franklin who was known to prefile dozens of bills before every legislative session, it is highly-likely that Gregory would have prefiled those bills anyway, whether or not the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre would have occurred.

Also, with the possible exception of HB 26, which would eliminate state licensing requirements for concealed carry, it depends on one’s point-of-view on the gun issue whether or not Gregory’s prefiling of those gun-related bills is “tacky and cold”.

The gun-control advocates that have always wanted to restrict law-abiding citizens’ legal access to firearms did not think that it was “tacky and cold” to quickly and shamelessly use the Sandy Hook tragedy as a means to further their longstanding anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Why is it only “tacky and cold” for a pro-gun advocate like State Rep-elect Gregory to want to expand legal access to firearms for law-abiding citizens, but not for the anti-gunners who “never let a good crisis go to waste”?

The argument that one can especially see Gregory’s legislative intent in curbing violent gun crimes in so-called “gun-free zones” (like a Georgia Tech) where heavily-armed criminals with illegally-obtained firearms routinely target unarmed law-abiding citizens for violent crime because criminals know that will encounter virtually no resistance.

bowersville December 24, 2012 at 11:30 am

What else in HB 26 creates cannon fodder and/or low hanging fruit for gun control proponents? The bill states “evil resides in the heart of the individual, not in material objects,”

Expanding gun rights and prohibiting firecrackers in the same bill can’t be a good idea. IMHO, it’s too easy for gun control proponents to criticize and mock. Yeah, I know, firecrackers are loud, can blow your hand off or put your eye out but I don’t know of one instance where fire crackers were used for mass murder.

seenbetrdayz December 24, 2012 at 11:39 am

Sen. Feinstein’s been sitting on an AWB Bill which is over a year in the making. If gun-grabbers thought these sort of bills would prevent tragedies such as Sandy Hook, why did they wait until AFTER it happened to push forward the legislation? And people want to say that gun-rights advocates are the opportunists? Come on.

Ed December 24, 2012 at 11:43 am

Not sure if serious.

seenbetrdayz December 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm

“Never let a crisis go to waste.”

John Konop December 21, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Here we go again playing politics with a mental health issue. Both sides should be put in time out. If any side really cared about the issue, instead of the politics, it would be a bill about mental health issues. Stepping over the dead children to play politics is just flat out wrong.

Read this article below and you will understand the problem! The grandstanding by both sides makes me sick!

…….A local parent of a mentally ill child says: “Change our mental health system now before more blood is shed.”……..

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2012/12/18/a-local-parent-of-a-mentally-ill-child-says-change-our-mental-health-system-now-before-more-blood-is-shed/

mountainpass December 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Mental Health is the root.

seenbetrdayz December 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm

While everyone here is worried about when the proper time to discuss gun rights is, insane people aren’t waiting around:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/21/4-dead-including-gunman-in-rural-pennsylvania-shooting/

If only those insane people would use reason and logic. I mean, how could they carry out an act like this right on the heels of Sandy Hook?

Noway December 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm

More power to Gingrey! I hope they all pass.

Noway December 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm

To all the anti-gun weenies, let me propose this:
Since drunk/negligent/inexperienced drivers use cars to kill people, let’s ban cars! Yeah, that’s it….
Is it not a deadly instrument in the hands of a mentally impaired (drunk) or immature person?
And cars kill more thousands more people than guns ever do in a given year.
So, ban cars. This will certainly restrict people’s access to an instrument of death, don’t you think?

AMB December 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm

The crazies are strong in Cobb.

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 21, 2012 at 5:57 pm

“For reference, I own multiple handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun. I also have a concealed weapon permit. Yes, I’d be that citizen in the news for taking matters into my hands during an emergency.”

Handle your business, Bridget. Seeing as though women are targeted for acts of violent crime by armed criminals much more often than men because criminals figure that women are more likely to be unarmed, more women should be encouraged to carry concealed firearms after being trained on how to effectively handle and use them, of course.

“Your timing could’ve been better. This isn’t who we are in Cobb County. Merry Christmas, sir.”

It actually does seem to be who you are in Cobb County. I don’t know if State Representative-elect Charles Gregory of Kennesaw actually lives within the incorporated city limits of Kennesaw proper or just lives in unincorporated Kennesaw, but Kennesaw is known nationally for being a city that has a law on the books requiring each head of household to own a firearm.

Kennesaw is also known nationally as a city with a very-low crime rate because of its law requiring that each head of household own a firearm.

For the most part, criminals know not to commit violent crime in Kennesaw because they know that the chances are much higher that they will get shot when doing so, especially during those violent home invasions that are very common in parts of Fulton, Clayton, DeKalb and Gwinnett, but are seemingly almost unheard of within the corporate limits of Kennesaw-proper.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

fishtail December 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm

Besides the NRA getting pilloried, why isn’t there a lot of hell being raised about the de-sensitizing violent game videos featuring such titles as Kindergarten Killer where the player is urged to “shoot the pesky kids with a shotgun”…..http://www.flashrolls.com/shooting-games/Kindergarten-Killer-Game.htm

Vicki December 22, 2012 at 12:21 am

Thank God Rep. Gregory was elected. It’s about time someone who’s actually READ the U.S. Constitution got in there. We need, oh, I’d say about 179 more just like him. And about 56 more of him on the Senate side.

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm

Gregory is the real deal as a Constitutional Conservative with a very strong Libertarian bent who believes in small(er) government. He came across as a lot more responsive and accessible to voters and constituents than the sitting State Representative that he defeated in the overwhelmingly much more highly-funded Judy Manning.

Dave Bearse December 22, 2012 at 11:37 am

It’s simply the GaGOP pursing its base priorities—guns, gays and abortion—despite Georgia’s unemployment running a percent or two higher than that of the country at large.

It’s a wonder GM selected Georgia for the location of a new technology innovation unit, given those priorities generally don’t attract the people with the skills required for that type of employment. It’s GM though, enabling employees to do the time then move on elsewhere.

There hasn’t been anit-gay legislation of late and rhetoric seems to be restricted to election years. Same-sex marriage elsewhere may energize legislation here though.

Abortion legislation will be on the Dome agenda should a court strike down the 20 week limitation on abortions prior to the end of the session. (For the record, I wouldn’t object to a 22 week limitation that errs a little on the safe side of the science.)

AMB December 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm

Dave, would you object to me telling you when you can have a baby? How about minding your own business and let pregnant women and their doctors make their medical decisions without state interference?

Harry December 22, 2012 at 3:25 pm

How about minding your own business and allow babies to have a life.

freeduck December 22, 2012 at 10:46 pm

That’s right, let those babies live to be gunned down in their inadequate public schools by unemployed and/or mentally ill men in crisis whose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness seem out of reach, but whose guns, thanks to the GOP, are not. Dear GOP, you’re focusing on the wrong things.

The Last Democrat in Georgia December 22, 2012 at 5:28 pm

AMB, I don’t disagree with you, but pro-choicers have got to understand (and seemingly better comprehend) that Georgia is a deep-red state with an extremely-strong Conservative and religious bent in which the practice of abortion is highly-disliked by a great deal of the population.

Pro-choicers have got to understand that preserving access to the greatly-despised practice of abortion is not going to be a priority in Georgia politics.

Limiting and restricting access to a practice that is pretty much not-all-that-popular with much of the public will always be a political priority for the foreseeable future.

Outnumbered Georgia Liberals can either deal with that reality in the best way that they can or they can move to another state where restricting abortion (and restricting gay marriage and increasing legal access to firearms) is not a political priority.

Dave Bearse December 22, 2012 at 6:27 pm

I’m pro-choice, but there’s a not well-defined gray area where a fetus becomes developed enough that the decision to abort in the case of a healthy fetus and no complications for the mother are longer the mother’s and her phyician to make alone. BTW, my math was off and I meant 23-24 weeks.

Life of the mother is an exception beyond the 23-24 weeks, as would be serious fetal defects, but the latter may be even more difficult to establish than 23-24 weeks as a standard.

The third trimester (26 weeks) is generally considered outside the gray area with respect to abortion on demand with respect to healthy fetuses. My position is to err 2-3 weeks into the gray area in establishing a bright line.

mpierce December 22, 2012 at 11:10 pm

And allow science to interfere in high stakes political football?

AMB December 22, 2012 at 8:44 pm

My position is you have no standing in any trimester.

mpierce December 22, 2012 at 11:24 pm

Does that include the 4th trimester?

Barack Obama Calls Newborn Baby a Fetus Outside of the Womb in his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

sonofliberty December 23, 2012 at 2:26 pm

The incoming freshman house republican becomes a legislator when he gets sworn in. Not before. These void filings proposing an expansion of gun rights in Georgia before Newtown completes the sad task of burying its teachers and children are just tasteless fodder for the media and are absent all thought.

Daddy Got A Gun December 23, 2012 at 3:15 pm

How is someone who waited 6 days more tasteless and absent in thought than the anti-gun politicians and news media pushing gun control and spewing untruths and inaccuracies within hours of the massacre?

Jimmie December 24, 2012 at 11:37 am

Very True. It’s ok for the Libs to use it to push their agenda.

David Staples December 24, 2012 at 1:08 pm

“and are absent all thought”

How do you know Gregory hasn’t been working on these bills over the last couple of months already and just wanted to file them before the beginning of the session perhaps to go ahead and start gaining support? I would imagine it’s tough for freshman legislators to get bills passed, is it not?

Comments on this entry are closed.