Stacey Abrams
Shutterstock

Georgia Democratic candidate for governor Stacey Abrams is rolling out a gun control plan that includes restricting gun rights. It’s a gambit she believes state Republicans are ready to get behind.

Abrams wants to reverse course on several pro-gun measures signed into law by Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, including a repeal of the state’s Constitutional Carry law, enacting universal background checks for private firearm transfers and imposing so-called “red flag” laws that don’t protect Due Process rights. At the same time, she’s got a plan that would include a “clean slate” program that would wipe out offender criminal records if they don’t commit further crimes in a set time period.

Abrams told Axios her plan includes, “the obvious and the common-sense gun safety rules that do not infringe upon anyone’s ability to carry.”

Except that it does.

Punish the Law-Abiding

Abrams’ gun control plan centers on several measures that clearly infringe on the rights of law-abiding Georgians, not criminals that have no respect for the law. Her gun control plan would reverse course on Georgia’s Constitutional Carry law that allows for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm without requiring a payment and permission from state authorities to do so.

“SB 319 makes sure that law abiding Georgians, law abiding Georgians, including our daughters, and your family too, can protect themselves without having to have permission from your state government. The Constitution of the United States gives us that right, not the government,” said Gov. Kemp when he signed the legislation into law at a firearm retailer in Douglasville, Georgia.

Abrams claims the law allows criminals and the mentally ill to carry firearms. This ignores the fact that it is already a felony for prohibited persons, including felons and those adjudicated mentally defective or those involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, to possess a firearm.

She would also reverse course on other carry laws, including a 2017 “campus carry” law and a 2014 law allowing law-abiding Georgians to carry firearms in churches, schools and bars. Topping off that plan would be her push to criminalize private firearm transfers without an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification.

Stacey Abrams angry
(John Bazemore/AP Photo)

Abrams believes that the same legislators that sent these bills to be signed into law would suddenly turn tail and support her effort to repeal them.

“During the time that ‘guns everywhere’ passed in the state legislature, there were many Republicans who knew that it was the wrong thing to do, but it was an election year,” Abrams said, according to Axios. “And I think in hindsight, there will be very much a willingness to reconsider and to strengthen our laws.”

Appease Criminals

Abrams’ tough-on-guns approach, though, doesn’t apply to those breaking the law. In fact, she doubles-down in her plan to go soft-on-crime, even while she blasts Gov. Kemp for empowering Georgians to protect themselves from criminals.

Abrams told media that she’s still in favor of eliminating cash bail for some crimes, which turns criminals immediately back to the streets. She wants some low-level traffic and drug crimes to be classified as civil offenses instead of crimes. She also wants a “clean slate” law that would automatically clear criminal records if someone doesn’t re-offend in a set period of time.

Republican National Committee spokesperson Garrison Douglas derided the clean slate proposal as “felony-b-gone,” reported ABC News.

Georgia sheriffs are lining up with Gov. Kemp in condemning Abrams for her ties to groups supporting the “defund the police” movement. Over 100 sheriffs blasted Abrams for her connection to the Marguerite Casey Foundation, a Seattle-based grantmaking group that has called for the abolition of police.

Abrams supported an expanded anti-police initiative from the group shortly after joining its board, according to Fox News. The Marguerite Casey Foundation has repeatedly supported defunding and abolishing police, awarded millions of dollars to academics that advocate for anti-capitalist views and abolishment of prisons, and Abrams supported the foundation’s expanded anti-police initiative “Answer the Uprising” campaign.

“Ms. Abrams actively serves on the governing board of – and has profited from – an anti-police organization which openly advocates for abolishing prisons and stripping local police departments of their funding,” the group of 102 sheriffs wrote.

Abrams’ vision for Georgia doesn’t favor those who obey the law. For them, it’s a loss of Second Amendment freedom. Her plan gives reprieve only to those who break the law.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

46 COMMENTS

  1. I mean, she almost won. Look to Michigan under Kovid. Both the legislature and cucked white electorate will click their heals.

      • Be nice now, ‘mkay. She’s the illegitimate love child offspring of Bill Cosby and Oscar the Grouch; how would you like spending nights prowling dumpsters for discarded Jello pudding-pop containers ?

      • What is her position (aside from the obvious)?

        That people have too much freedom and need the oppression of their betters for their own good?

  3. “At the same time, she’s got a plan that would include a “clean slate” program that would wipe out offender criminal records if they don’t commit further crimes in a set time period.”

    Well, that’s sort of false right there. Its possible she could do this in the state system, but the federal system will still have record and she can’t affect that. About the only thing she can do is have all those cases dismissed first then remove the records in the state system so they show as dismissed in the federal system too.

    • Federal law acknowledges pardons. If she proposes a law that would parden someone say five or 10 years after they complete the terms of their sentence if they don’t reoffend I would be a supporter of such a measure.

      • I’m sure you would Officer Bill, because it clear you of all your rape charges.

        • Nah, killing the victim before they have a chance to file a police report or to testify in court works much much better and it saves a ton of money on legal expenses

      • well it is true that Federal law acknowledges pardons. But she is not going to pardon. A pardon doesn’t wipe out a criminal record and she says she will “wipe out offender criminal records”. With a pardon the record still exists, it does not remove the record. All a pardon does is excuse the criminal from the penalties (exempts someone from punishment or continuation of punishment for a crime) and restores rights.

        • Here in Texas a pardon does wipe your criminal record because you can have everything expunged from your record after receiving a pardon. You have to file separately for an expungement hearing. You’re even allowed to say under oath that you’ve never been convicted of a crime if your record has been expunged. There are even criminal penalties of a $25,000 fine and up to a year in jail if someone brings up your record after it has been expunged.

        • @Officer Bill

          For Texas, what you are speaking of is Clemency. Pardons fall under Clemency in Texas. It comes in different flavors. Records are not automatically expunged, if eligible for expungement it has to be specifically granted or applied for. Some do not qualify to have records expunged. Rights restoration can be full, partial, or none

          The different flavors of Clemency are administered by the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole.

          You can see the different flavors of Texas Clemency here > https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/bpp/exec_clem/Effects_of_a_Full_Pardon.html (look at the menu on the left)

          as far as the record, if it is expunged it is only removed from the law enforcement and judicial access records. The record is then maintained by the Texas Board of Pardon and Parole as part of the record of clemency.

  4. “including a repeal of the state’s Constitutional Carry law”

    That’s a pretty stupid thing to want to do. And why even? Its not caused any issues and in fact has resulted in a general drop in violent criminals offenders violent activity.

    “enacting universal background checks for private firearm transfers ”

    Yeah, this is clearly unconstitutional, and illegal too.

    • Clarification for … “Its not caused any issues and in fact has resulted in a general drop in violent criminals offenders violent activity.”

      criminals offenders violent activity is not always the same as criminals offenders violent crime commission. Such activity, for example, can include undiscovered (by victim) stalking, planning, and targeting.

      There is substantial proof in all states with constitutional carry that criminal activity is overall curtailed or stopped when the criminal thinks the targeted victim may be armed or the targeted victim is armed. The criminals overall move on to other targets which are less likely to be armed (e.g. the elderly, disabled, women, under age 18, the poor and those on welfare subsistence, homeless, those in gun free zones, etc…). The overall overall curtailing or stopping the activity when a criminal thinks the victim may be or is armed results in greatly less crime victims in the armed demographic overall, even though the act of moving on to other unarmed victims keeps the crime rates up or higher or steady. What is mostly seen in the crime stats from constitutional carry states is that effect, the criminals mostly choosing targets less likely to be armed.

      So in reality constitutional carry does reduce crime in the demographics of those who do carry or are thought to be possibly armed, and overall crime decreased among black and Hispanic and Asian demographics who could be armed (now, thanks to removal of the racism in past systems with the move to constitutional carry). But because of the overall effect of the criminals moving to targeting those who they think are probably not armed (e.g. the elderly, disabled, women, under age 18, the poor and those on welfare subsistence, homeless, those in gun free zones, etc…) which keeps the crime rates up or higher or steady the crime rates don’t reflect the reduction in overall crime.

    • Well, nothing like a clear prima facie case by admission to conspire to deprive the population of her state of their guaranteed Constitutional rights under USCC 18-241-242. What she clearly announced that she intends to do is the commission of a Federal crime even under ‘color of law’.

      GOA or the 2nd/A Foundation should be able to get multiple complainants to file charges and file a lawsuit like the other recent case if the prosecutor fails to indict.

  5. The most important take-away is….

    The Second Amendment didn’t protect the nation against infringements.

    Heller and McDonald didn’t protect the nation against Second Amendment infringements.

    Bruen has no more power than the Constitution, and Heller/McDonald.

    “Permitless carry” is simple, state-level legislation – “majority rule”. Stacey Abrams is putting us on notice about that.

  6. “Abrams claims the law allows criminals and the mentally ill to carry firearms. This ignores the fact that it is already a felony for prohibited persons, including felons and those adjudicated mentally defective or those involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, to possess a firearm.”

    Then Abrams needs to take these prohibited persons out of circulation, and not infringe the rights of those who are not prohibited persons.

    The constitutional carry law does not “allow” criminals and the mentally ill to carry firearms. The law was for law abiding people who are not prohibited or mentally ill, it allowed them and not criminals and the mentally ill.

    She sounds a lot like shes the left in disguise.

    • “Abrams claims the law allows criminals and the mentally ill to carry firearms. This ignores the fact that it is already a felony for prohibited persons“

      You are correct, the left does get this one wrong often. I think many of them are just ignorant of the prohibited persons restrictions.

      I believe these felony and mental illness adjudication prohibitions are in federal law, as well as many state codes.

  8. The only conclusion is, there are a lot of criminals in her family, and she wants to make sure her close relatives aren’t shot during the commission of their next felony.

  10. Abrams told Axios her plan includes, “the obvious and the common-sense gun safety rules that do not infringe upon anyone’s ability to carry.”

    She lied to them. Everything in her plan is an infringement of a law abiding person’s ability to carry. The damn thing can only be applied against the law abiding, criminals and largely the “violent’ mentally ill don’t follow laws or common sense or safety.

    But here we go again with someone trying to paint gun control as safety. There is absolutely zero proof that any gun control plan or permitting system ever made things safer.

  11. I totally support disarming the police. But keep funding police department operations. There is no ethical or moral reason for the police to have weapons.

      • The police stood down and did nothing as American cities were burned to the ground and law-abiding people were raped and murdered. Police in Parkland Florida and Uvalde Texas did nothing as children were shot dead in their classrooms. There is no reason, no justification, for the police to carry weapons. They are not interested in using them to defend school children. They will follow stand down orders and have become the good Germans.

        All laws that prevent Americans from shooting criminals dead on sight should be repealed. There’s absolutely no reason why a property owner can’t shoot a thief dead when they are caught red-handed. Property Owners should be able to kill thieves just like the government kills thieves who steal government property.

        You just can’t face the truth.

        You can keep the police operating budgets if you wish. But the only weapon the police should be carrying is a nightstick. And they should receive the training to use it. That is the only weapon they need in the 21st century. That is the only weapon they have proven that they need. They certainly do not need firearms. Because they seem incapable of using them. And if the police are not going to use their firearms to save the lives of innocent people? Then it’s best they don’t carry them at all.

        Law-abiding gun owners are far more law trustworthy, and responsible than the police with their guns.

  12. Stacey is flaky if she thinks her gun “confiscation” plan would work and if she thought Americans would freely and gladly give up their Constitutional rights. She’s a real nutcase if she thinks that.

  13. Her ad on tv against Kemp says that he took money from the gun maker that the dirtbag killed 19 in Ulvalde. She took money from GM – their vehicles killed over 8500 people last year.

  14. I’ve always thought it was appropriate for this woman to be named Abrams.

    After all, she IS built like a tank.

  15. I guess she is pretty “confident” that Fulton County will hoist her over the finish line first.

  16. I surmise when SHTF here real soon, no one is going to give a damned about concealed carry laws. People are going to be packing because there will be no rule of law. And people like Abrams can stuff her gun control laws where the sun does not shine.

  18. She is also in favor of defunding the police by redirecting the money to buy donuts for schools. She calls it crullers for kids. She will be careful to sample every batch for taste and consistency.

  19. From is side of the Pond it continues to amaze us that whilst according to polls, over THREE QUARTER of ALL American voters, incluing a large number of gun-owners, would back far more stringent gun controls and licensing requirements the PRO-GUN lobby still holds so much sway. It can only be because of the vast amounts of hard cash being directed towards those in power by the wider firearms industr.
    Let’s face it 90% of the firearms market is mere marketting .
    Nobody actually NEED’S more than a single decent 9mm or .38 calbre hand gun for any purpose of self defence. Equally nobody actually NEED’S anything other than a FIVE shot BOLT ACTION RIFLE of a suitable calibre for any purpose and certainly not for any kind of HUNTING. And nobody need’s any more than 25 rounds of immediate use ammunition for either. Everything else comes under the label of rather CHILD-LIKE ”WANTS”
    It is for absolute certain that nobody needs a semi-auto rifle for hunting and if, perchance, they think they do then to my mind they are NOT compentent enough ‘hunters’ in the first place. Semi-Automatic rifles have but ONE legitimate purpose – to KILL PEOPLE.

    The same goes form High Calibre hand guns [as in the various MAGNUMS]. They are of no practical use except for some extremely special circumstances that Mr or Mrs Average American would never meet. They are most certainly NOT for Self Defence too big too cumbersome, too difficult to use in a hurry and just too damn ‘overkill’ powerful They are the exact reasons why the PROFESSIONALS in Police Services and the Amed Forces have no use for them. Ever heard of one of those Famous SEALS carrrying a DESERT EAGLE .44 Magnum into battle? NO YOU HAVE NOT!!

    • “It is for absolute certain that nobody needs a semi-auto rifle for hunting” Lord, where to start.

      A, Semi automatic rifles are absolutely necessary for hunting hogs and coyotes. Hogs run in packs and destroy farms. Coyotes are small and skittish and require quick follow up shots. Point of fact, the AR-15 in it’s common .223 or 5.56 is a fantastic round for these animals. In fact you’ll want a semi auto for any nuisance animal like prairie dogs. Your claim is 100% a lie

      B, Hunting is the only reason to own a gun? You can’t own one for competitive purposes? You think that criminals only run one deep and there’s never several of them together?

      “The same goes form High Calibre hand guns [as in the various MAGNUMS]. They are of no practical use except for some extremely special circumstances that Mr or Mrs Average American would never meet”

      Again, so much to unpack. Some Americans live in bear country. Bears don’t particularly go down easy to a 38 special. Some people use magnum handguns for hunting. Some people enjoy having a magnum firearm at the range. Shooting is cathartic and soothing.

      In one post, you tell us we shouldn’t be allowed weapons of war. Then in the other you say that if a famous SEAL didn’t carry a particular gun that means we CAN’T own it.

      You are so full of your own supposed moral superiority that your brain has no room for actual knowledge.

    • Care to provide some links as to where you got these polls? Also the second amendment is NOT at all about hunting NOR simply self defense. Even if your comment about semi-auto rifles not being needed for hunting was true, and their only purpose was to kill people… ok… great. Glad we are on the same page. Again, the second amendment has absolutely nothing at all to so with hunting so your rambling means nothing.

Comments are closed.