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

[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.

As to background checks?

Make the system a free phone app....selling a gun, name and birthday, punch it in, anyone is allowed access....and yes or no for the check, no permanent record....no choke point for anti gunners.

They only care about universal background checks because they need them to get gun registratin......dont help them

 

[flacaltenn]

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

You just basically contradicted yourself trying to make a case for UNIVERSAL Const. Carry. Gangs are generally composed of criminals or soon-2-B criminals. If THEY get that right to carry with NO INVESTIGATION or court order -- the police cannot disarm or charge them on weapons if they have an UNVETTED, CONSTITUTIONAL right to carry. So YEAH -- they're "not supposed to have those guns, included 100 round pistols, but NOW you want the cops to just say "have a nice day"...

Why did the cops STOP THEM? To check for weapons? Good luck with that.

It DOES NOT WORK where people AND their govt DONT RESPECT LAW and ORDER. It also will tarnish it's own reputation if you have no proof of gun education to carry.

In that way, it's similar to making marijuana "legalization" work right so it doesn't collapse from a small segment of conniving stupid people. There MUST be some rules and structures for buying and selling.

Should be a system where the JUDGE and COURT are removed from the Carry process,, COULD USE NICS as it is now in fact. I'd take THAT and a training certificate and SUBSIDIZE the training thru gun rights orgs and call it done.

 

[flacaltenn]

As to background checks?

Make the system a free phone app....selling a gun, name and birthday, punch it in, anyone is allowed access....and yes or no for the check, no permanent record....no choke point for anti gunners.

They only care about universal background checks because they need them to get gun registratin......dont help them

As long as the data from NICS remains temporary, I have no issues with that. It's the FFL dealers that are required to keep records.

A NICS check and completion of safety training ON THAT WEAPON. 2 hour training session. No judge -- no court.

 

[2aguy]

You just basically contradicted yourself trying to make a case for UNIVERSAL Const. Carry. Gangs are generally composed of criminals or soon-2-B criminals. If THEY get that right to carry with NO INVESTIGATION or court order -- the police cannot disarm or charge them on weapons if they have an UNVETTED, CONSTITUTIONAL right to carry. So YEAH -- they're "not supposed to have those guns, included 100 round pistols, but NOW you want the cops to just say "have a nice day"...

Why did the cops STOP THEM? To check for weapons? Good luck with that.

It DOES NOT WORK where people AND their govt DONT RESPECT LAW and ORDER. It also will tarnish it's own reputation if you have no proof of gun education to carry.

In that way, it's similar to making marijuana "legalization" work right so it doesn't collapse from a small segment of conniving stupid people. There MUST be some rules and structures for buying and selling.

Should be a system where the JUDGE and COURT are removed from the Carry process,, COULD USE NICS as it is now in fact. I'd take THAT and a training certificate and SUBSIDIZE the training thru gun rights orgs and call it done.

Wrong. They get stopped by a cop for a taillight, they get their ID run…….they come back as a felon, and if they have a gun they are arrested…..they can’t carry a gun in any way…

Constitutional carry doesn’t apply to criminals.

Any training requirement becomes prohibitive….in Illinois you have to have 16 hours of training to get a carry permit…….I have a friend who works 50-60 hours a week then he has a family….he doesn’t have the time to do 16 hours of training….he is essentially prohibited from carrying a gun with that requirement

 

[flacaltenn]

Wrong. They get stopped by a cop for a taillight, they get their ID run…….they come back as a felon, and if they have a gun they are arrested…..they can’t carry a gun in any way…

How often do catch a tail-light out? Maybe have undercover go punch some taillights to get the stop if at anytime they GET SERIOUS about breaking up gangs.

Constitutional carry doesn’t apply to criminals.

Where in the Constitution exactly does it say that? It doesn't. It has to be specifically required as a condition.

Any training requirement becomes prohibitive….in Illinois you have to have 16 hours of training to get a carry permit…….I have a friend who works 50-60 hours a week then he has a family….he doesn’t have the time to do 16 hours of training….he is essentially prohibited from carrying a gun with that requirement

Fuck Illinois and fuck the 16 hours. I dont want to walk the streets of Pittsburg with 100,000 Alec Balwins carrying. DOnt NEED 16 hours to be safe. 16 hours is the whole "defensive gun use" bible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This is a lie – the issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

The issue concerns probate judges making eligibility determinations with incomplete criminal records and convictions histories – this could be the case with the issuance of any type of license where a felony conviction would render an applicant ineligible.

The denials were made because of incomplete criminal and conviction records, not in an effort to keep anyone from carrying a concealed firearm.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Applicants for any type of license cannot be denied that license because the state does a poor job of keeping records or making records available to judges in a timely manner.

That one might be arrested and charged with a felony doesn’t mean he’s a convicted felon.

The state can’t request an applicant provide documentation it’s the state’s responsibility to provide.

And again, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The state is within rights to have COMPLETED applications.

Complete application, yes – but that’s not the issue.

If the application is incomplete because the state fails retain or provide necessary documentation, the state is at fault, not the applicant – where the application is to be approved to the benefit of the applicant.

This is settled, accepted policy concerning applications for public assistance, professional and business licenses, and applications for government contracts, for example.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Or not.

If a permit is issued because the state failed to provide a criminal/conviction record timely, and later a felony conviction is documented, the state can revoke the license.

The state shouldn’t have a problem winning a fair hearing with documentation that the permit holder is a prohibited person.

 

[2aguy]

How often do catch a tail-light out? Maybe have undercover go punch some taillights to get the stop if at anytime they GET SERIOUS about breaking up gangs.


Where in the Constitution exactly does it say that? It doesn't. It has to be specifically required as a condition.



Fuck Illinois and fuck the 16 hours. I dont want to walk the streets of Pittsburg with 100,000 Alec Balwins carrying. DOnt NEED 16 hours to be safe. 16 hours is the whole "defensive gun use" bible.

Doesn't work that way.....Constitutional carry simply means you don't have to get a permit to carry a gun, it doesn't absolve you of felonies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Complete application, yes – but that’s not the issue.

If the application is incomplete because the state fails retain or provide necessary documentation, the state is at fault, not the applicant – where the application is to be approved to the benefit of the applicant.

This is settled, accepted policy concerning applications for public assistance, professional and business licenses, and applications for government contracts, for example.

Best legal analysis I ever got from you...,

All of that mess needs to be addressed as the TOP priority in Justice Reform.

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't work that way.....Constitutional carry simply means you don't have to get a permit to carry a gun, it doesn't absolve you of felonies.

It absolves you of those felonies if the RIGHT to Constitutional Carry is "self - declared". And doesn't involve ANY list of check-offs. A list of check-offs is NOT a "permit". A permit is a SUBJECTIVE assessment by a judge or counsel.

 

[flacaltenn]

In fact, NOTHING self-declared can be implemented without LARGE legal consequences. Like waking up in the morning and deciding to CHANGE your sex.

You cannot make LAW that involves people "self-declaring" to qualify. It makes a FARCE of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Doesn't work that way.....Constitutional carry simply means you don't have to get a permit to carry a gun, it doesn't absolve you of felonies.

Requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm is likewise Constitutional carry.

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘Constitutional carry’ – it’s a political contrivance of the right having nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment, the Constitution, or the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They only care about universal background checks because they need them to get gun registratin......dont help them

This is a lie.

UBCs have nothing to do with ‘gun registration’; those who support UBCs do not support ‘gun registration.’

This is another lie from the dishonest right; just like the lies about ‘banning’ guns and ‘confiscating’ guns.

 

[2aguy]

Requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed firearm is likewise Constitutional carry.

Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘Constitutional carry’ – it’s a political contrivance of the right having nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment, the Constitution, or the law.

No...it isn't. Just like requiring a Literacy Test for voting, or requiring a Poll Tax to vote....two things the democrats implemented to keep blacks from voting.

 

[2aguy]

This is a lie.

UBCs have nothing to do with ‘gun registration’; those who support UBCs do not support ‘gun registration.’

This is another lie from the dishonest right; just like the lies about ‘banning’ guns and ‘confiscating’ guns.

When someone sells their privately owned gun in a private sale, the only way to know if a background check was done for the sale is gun registration....which is the only reason morons like you want universal background checks.

Without gun registration, doofus, how do universal background checks work?

 

[Rogue AI]

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.

We don't punish people for arrests, we punish them for convictions. Asking about arrests serves no purpose if there is no conviction. Clearly the legislature needs to fix this problem, or they deliberately created it. Either way, arrests as a criteria appears to exist to impede one from exercising their rights.

 

[flacaltenn]

We don't punish people for arrests, we punish them for convictions. Asking about arrests serves no purpose if there is no conviction. Clearly the legislature needs to fix this problem, or they deliberately created it. Either way, arrests as a criteria appears to exist to impede one from exercising their rights.

You're probably right. I think the NICS for purchase asks about CONVICTIONS -- not arrests. BUT - that doesn't stop some judge with full powers to DENY your right to get carry certified based on FINDING that arrest record even if faulty.

Good point.