Georgia Supreme Court…judges can’t hold gun permits, must issue them…

[2aguy]

A win for Americans in Georgia…

On Tuesday, the state’s high court rejected an argument by DeKalb County officials, who’d claimed that when the background checks for concealed carry applicants come back with incomplete information, county probate judges are within their rights to deny an applicant their license.

———

Justice Verda Colvin, who wrote the Supreme Court opinion, said Georgia law says a probate judge “shall” issue a license unless there’s a factual finding the applicant is ineligible for one.

“(M)ere speculation or uncertainty about an applicant’s qualifications for a weapons carry license cannot support a determination that an applicant is ineligible or disqualified,” Colvin wrote.

The justice added that the court was unpersuaded by the county’s argument that probate judges should be given greater discretion to deny carry licenses to protect the public from dangerous people.

“Balancing policy considerations is a job for the General Assembly,” Colvin wrote. “It is not for us to second-guess the General Assembly’s policy determinations.”

Georgia Supreme Court Sides With the Second

bearingarms.com

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You know the agency could just request that the applicant supply the missing information, otherwise they could simply not include negative information that would disqualify the applicant and gamble that the applicant will slide under the radar without the disqualifying information.

 

[wamose]

It should be no surprise that Democrats have gone totalitarian. They haven't believed in our constitution or our laws for years.

 

[flacaltenn]

A win for Americans in Georgia…

On Tuesday, the state’s high court rejected an argument by DeKalb County officials, who’d claimed that when the background checks for concealed carry applicants come back with incomplete information, county probate judges are within their rights to deny an applicant their license.

———

Justice Verda Colvin, who wrote the Supreme Court opinion, said Georgia law says a probate judge “shall” issue a license unless there’s a factual finding the applicant is ineligible for one.

“(M)ere speculation or uncertainty about an applicant’s qualifications for a weapons carry license cannot support a determination that an applicant is ineligible or disqualified,” Colvin wrote.

The justice added that the court was unpersuaded by the county’s argument that probate judges should be given greater discretion to deny carry licenses to protect the public from dangerous people.

“Balancing policy considerations is a job for the General Assembly,” Colvin wrote. “It is not for us to second-guess the General Assembly’s policy determinations.”

Georgia Supreme Court Sides With the Second

bearingarms.com

Sorry man, dont understand this decision. The state is within rights to have COMPLETED applications. Largely, because that's the published standard and you SIGN saying ALL information is COMPLETE.

If the info is not complete, it SHOULD be denied.

If you dont like what they ASK for -- CHANGE it.

A faulty form should not jeopardize the chance of submitting a complete statement in the future tho. Don't see the grievance here.

 

[Pete7469]

Sorry man, dont understand this decision. The state is within rights to have COMPLETED applications. Largely, because that's the published standard and you SIGN saying ALL information is COMPLETE.

If the info is not complete, it SHOULD be denied.

If you dont like what they ASK for -- CHANGE it.

A faulty form should not jeopardize the chance of submitting a complete statement in the future tho. Don't see the grievance here.

The issue isn't about an individual not completing the form, but the state not providing a complete check of the back ground.

the justices sided with plaintiff Clinton Bell, who had been denied his carry license because his background check showed that he’d been arrested for pointing a gun at someone back in 1986, but the check did not include any information about the ultimate disposition of the case (Bell, for the record, was never prosecuted).

 

[Rogue AI]

Sorry man, dont understand this decision. The state is within rights to have COMPLETED applications. Largely, because that's the published standard and you SIGN saying ALL information is COMPLETE.

If the info is not complete, it SHOULD be denied.

If you dont like what they ASK for -- CHANGE it.

A faulty form should not jeopardize the chance of submitting a complete statement in the future tho. Don't see the grievance here.

Did you feel the same about absentee/mail in ballots in 2020? Numerous states violated their own laws to allow incomplete or inaccurate ballots to count.

 

[2aguy]

Sorry man, dont understand this decision. The state is within rights to have COMPLETED applications. Largely, because that's the published standard and you SIGN saying ALL information is COMPLETE.

If the info is not complete, it SHOULD be denied.

If you dont like what they ASK for -- CHANGE it.

A faulty form should not jeopardize the chance of submitting a complete statement in the future tho. Don't see the grievance here.

There shouldn't be any form for exercising the Right......Constitutional carry should be the norm.

 

[Rigby5]

Sorry man, dont understand this decision. The state is within rights to have COMPLETED applications. Largely, because that's the published standard and you SIGN saying ALL information is COMPLETE.

If the info is not complete, it SHOULD be denied.

If you dont like what they ASK for -- CHANGE it.

A faulty form should not jeopardize the chance of submitting a complete statement in the future tho. Don't see the grievance here.

No, this is not about an incomplete application.
This is about the FBI or other state background checks being incomplete.
This has nothing to do with the applicant.

The reason this can not be allowed is that it rewards the FBI and others being asked about the applicant, to simply do nothing.
That would deny all concealed carry permits.
Which would make the gun control people happy, but would means a lot robbed pawn shops, cab drivers, movie theater managers, jewelry shops, etc.
A concealed carry permit is essential to some professions.

 

[Pete7469]

There shouldn't be any form for exercising the Right......Constitutional carry should be the norm.

Unfortunately the 2A has been relegated to a "right" that scares people. When it was first written, it was not even argued why it existed or to the extent it could be exercised. For decades and generations fewer and fewer people felt the need to carry, even as weapon technology began to improve and criminal use increased. Once there were police depts few people were going to buy a Thompson M1 rather than a Model T Ford. We had a more moral society at the time as well, at least from my perspective.

People in modern times had seem to have been kept complacent and of the mindset that only cops, criminals and soldiers needed guns. Until WACO happened and all of sudden millions of people realized cops are sometimes criminals, and only show up after their use for anything beyond drawing chalk outlines was required. It seem like once 9/11 happened it became fashionable to have an AR or 3 plus a few semi-auto handguns and some ammo. This trend has only increased as the bed wetting left actually endeavors to make crime worse while knee capping law enforcement.

That said I'm somewhat torn about permits and shit. I'd like proper training to be conducted in High Schools, and at the very least safety training to be required for graduation. Having people with no training, no guidance or connection to those of us who have been carrying, have years of training, and carry professionaly is somewhat disconcerting. The level of jabbering retards running around on the planet like that fuckstick Bicep Boy Gross-Cruz that Kyle should have shot twice gives me pause about unregulated gun carry.

If people had been carrying and solved criminal encounters themselves 100 years ago, there might be a lot less genetic garbage in or prisons and on our streets like Gross-Cruz though. So there's that.


.

 

[2aguy]

Unfortunately the 2A has been relegated to a "right" that scares people. When it was first written, it was not even argued why it existed or to the extent it could be exercised. For decades and generations fewer and fewer people felt the need to carry, even as weapon technology began to improve and criminal use increased. Once there were police depts few people were going to buy a Thompson M1 rather than a Model T Ford. We had a more moral society at the time as well, at least from my perspective.

People in modern times had seem to have been kept complacent and of the mindset that only cops, criminals and soldiers needed guns. Until WACO happened and all of sudden millions of people realized cops are sometimes criminals, and only show up after their use for anything beyond drawing chalk outlines was required. It seem like once 9/11 happened it became fashionable to have an AR or 3 plus a few semi-auto handguns and some ammo. This trend has only increased as the bed wetting left actually endeavors to make crime worse while knee capping law enforcement.

That said I'm somewhat torn about permits and shit. I'd like proper training to be conducted in High Schools, and at the very least safety training to be required for graduation. Having people with no training, no guidance or connection to those of us who have been carrying, have years of training, and carry professionaly is somewhat disconcerting. The level of jabbering retards running around on the planet like that fuckstick Bicep Boy Gross-Cruz that Kyle should have shot twice gives me pause about unregulated gun carry.

If people had been carrying and solved criminal encounters themselves 100 years ago, there might be a lot less genetic garbage in or prisons and on our streets like Gross-Cruz though. So there's that.


.

Keep in mind....we had 19.5 million people carrying guns in 2019......and only 451 accidental gun deaths......and of those the majority are criminals who can't buy, own or carry guns legally in the first place....

We have over 330 million people in the country....

So you are really worried over a non-issue.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

So now they'll issue a license to a complete lunatic.

He'll get a gun and kill 10 people at a Costco.

All because the information wasn't complete, and it didn't say that he was a complete lunatic on the form.

Yes, a great victory for Second Amendment enthusiasts.

 

[flacaltenn]

The issue isn't about an individual not completing the form, but the state not providing a complete check of the back ground.

The issue was he had an arrest for brandishing. But it was never prosecuted. If he didn't DISCLOSE that arrest and it was his ONLY one, the state can only go on his arrest record. It's really HIS responsibility to get that arrest record expunged.

Not clear what incomplete information was at stake here, but I'll bet a wad he didn't check the "arrests" box.

WHY? Because govt and in particular CRIMINAL RECORDS is not something that govt does well. Which is why I'm very libertarian about govt "competence" or motivation to be accurate.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you feel the same about absentee/mail in ballots in 2020? Numerous states violated their own laws to allow incomplete or inaccurate ballots to count.

Absolutely. In fact I feel stronger about the Dems violating state/fed law to LOWER election security and accuracy and GETTING AWAY WITH IT - than I do about this particular case.

 

[flacaltenn]

There shouldn't be any form for exercising the Right......Constitutional carry should be the norm.

Got to part ways here a bit. Constitutional carry WORKS in states that RESPECT the law, Wouldn't EVER work in Cali or the West Coast or other gang ridden bastions of crime.

I FULLY support NICS and want to keep the current protections of it. I don't feel it's PRYING or Constitution violating to ASK if you're a criminal or citizen to PURCHASE.

Same way on carry laws. I want to know that they've been trained and NOT some arrogant Baldwin who doesn't respect guns, And again, that they are CITIZENS and not Felons.

I dont mind Constitutional carry in Tenn for instance, because if you randomly chose 1000 folks off the streets -- 950 or them would have more training and experience with firearms than most of the judges that would be granting permits.

 

[flacaltenn]

Got to part ways here a bit. Constitutional carry WORKS in states that RESPECT the law, Wouldn't EVER work in Cali or the West Coast or other gang ridden bastions of crime.

I FULLY support NICS and want to keep the current protections of it. I don't feel it's PRYING or Constitution violating to ASK if you're a criminal or citizen to PURCHASE.

Same way on carry laws. I want to know that they've been trained and NOT some arrogant Baldwin who doesn't respect guns, And again, that they are CITIZENS and not Felons.

I dont mind Constitutional carry in Tenn for instance, because if you randomly chose 1000 folks off the streets -- 950 or them would have more training and experience with firearms than most of the judges that would be granting permits.

You wanna pretend its a civilian militia? Require a bit of discipline and training.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, this is not about an incomplete application.
This is about the FBI or other state background checks being incomplete.
This has nothing to do with the applicant.

Applicant probably should have expunged his arrest record then. It's STILL SITTING on the massively corrupted books of whatever jurisdiction recorded it. See posts above.

Part of real JUSTICE REFORM -- is to force accuracy and accountability in ALL the jurisdictions that keep arrest, court, warrants on file that ARE BOGUS.

No sense having the FBI or ANYONE pawing thru bogus and ignored mistakes in your records. UNFORTUNATELY govt is systemically incapable of doing that FOR YOU and doesn't really give a fuck at the moment. MORE DISTANCE ACCOMPLISHED in "justice reform" JUST by simply insisting on BETTER record keeping. Should be a top target in that quest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So now they'll issue a license to a complete lunatic.
He'll get a gun and kill 10 people at a Costco.

Why do you think a lunatic bent on shooting up a Costco will bother to get a permit?

 

[AZrailwhale]

So now they'll issue a license to a complete lunatic.

He'll get a gun and kill 10 people at a Costco.

All because the information wasn't complete, and it didn't say that he was a complete lunatic on the form.

Yes, a great victory for Second Amendment enthusiasts.

You did notice the part where was never even charged?

 

[2aguy]

Got to part ways here a bit. Constitutional carry WORKS in states that RESPECT the law, Wouldn't EVER work in Cali or the West Coast or other gang ridden bastions of crime.

I FULLY support NICS and want to keep the current protections of it. I don't feel it's PRYING or Constitution violating to ASK if you're a criminal or citizen to PURCHASE.

Same way on carry laws. I want to know that they've been trained and NOT some arrogant Baldwin who doesn't respect guns, And again, that they are CITIZENS and not Felons.

I dont mind Constitutional carry in Tenn for instance, because if you randomly chose 1000 folks off the streets -- 950 or them would have more training and experience with firearms than most of the judges that would be granting permits.

Any permit system can be used to deny the exercise of the Right.

Gangs arent allowed to have guns in the firat place.

Criminal is stoped, the cop runs his ID and sees he is a felon.... if he has a gun on him he is arrested

Copstops normal citizen, does a check for record and warrant, comes back clean, sees they are carrying a gun....says have a nice day and sends them on their way

There is no need for a permit in either case

 

[2aguy]

Got to part ways here a bit. Constitutional carry WORKS in states that RESPECT the law, Wouldn't EVER work in Cali or the West Coast or other gang ridden bastions of crime.

I FULLY support NICS and want to keep the current protections of it. I don't feel it's PRYING or Constitution violating to ASK if you're a criminal or citizen to PURCHASE.

Same way on carry laws. I want to know that they've been trained and NOT some arrogant Baldwin who doesn't respect guns, And again, that they are CITIZENS and not Felons.

I dont mind Constitutional carry in Tenn for instance, because if you randomly chose 1000 folks off the streets -- 950 or them would have more training and experience with firearms than most of the judges that would be granting permits.

European countries use training requirements to keep people from owning the limited selectin of hunting shotguns they allow them to own....anti gunners here will do the same thing...

Training requirements are no different from the semocrat party Literacy Tests for voting