Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia Supreme Court Sides With the Second
Bearing Arms ^ | 12/16/21 | Cam Edwards

Posted on 12/16/2021 4:50:56 PM PST by CFW

It’s nice to be able to cover some good news for gun owners on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, and the unanimous decision handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court this week is very good news indeed for those of us who recognize that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental and substantive right to both keep and bear arms.

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; georgia; secondamendment
Good news from Georgia Supreme Court!
1 posted on 12/16/2021 4:50:56 PM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CFW

But let it be a voting application or ballot incorrectly completed and they’ll argue to let it count!!!!


2 posted on 12/16/2021 4:53:16 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW
What a difference! A few years ago,in "Caetano v Massachusetts",the US Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in a 2nd Amendment case. The SCOTUS vote was 9-0 to overturn.

In the decision the justice writing the narrative referred to the Massachusetts court's decision as "frivolous".

3 posted on 12/16/2021 4:56:15 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Covid Is All About Mail In Balloting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

I still like the 1846 GA SCOTUS ruling better!

19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).

“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”


4 posted on 12/16/2021 5:13:18 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Still OUT of Facebook Jail! But I'm pushing it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
The Nunn decision is perfect prose, isn't it?
5 posted on 12/16/2021 5:15:42 PM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Background checks violate the 2nd. The RKBA “shall not be infringed. Arguably so do laws banning possession of firearms by anyone not actually in prison or judicially sequstered in mental wards.


6 posted on 12/16/2021 5:17:06 PM PST by arthurus (covfefe *-*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The State of Georgia requires anyone who caries a gun,
whether openly or concealed, to apply for and hold
a valid “Weapons Carry Permit”.

This case had to do with an individual who was denied a permit,
because the background check showed an arrest on his record,
for “pointing a gun a someone” from 40 years ago,
although he was never prosecuted for the crime.

Many of these background checks come back with partial,
or incomplete information.

In this case the Circuit Judge denied the permit because of the arrest,
even though there was no record of a prosecution,
much less, any record of a conviction.

Georgia law says a probate judge “shall” issue a license,
unless there’s a factual finding the applicant is ineligible.

The Georgia Supreme Court is simply clarifying the “discretion”
(or the lack of any discretion) of the Circuit Court Judges.


7 posted on 12/16/2021 5:37:47 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (Get out of the matrix and get a real life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

Ya, pretty narrow ruling. Applies only to those who don’t get an unqualified “not disqualified”, for which biased judges were using as grounds for outright infringing disqualification.

Nonetheless, progress. Emphasizes “if there isn’t a legal reason to deny the right (arrest, incompetence), the right cannot be denied.”


8 posted on 12/16/2021 7:48:02 PM PST by ctdonath2 (Statistics don't matter when they happen to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

EXACTLY!


9 posted on 12/16/2021 8:15:59 PM PST by ExGeeEye (For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I will know the Republic is safe when:

(items 1,2, and 4 not germane)

3. The idea of releasing a person onto the street while denying him, under color of law, an otherwise lawful means of self-defense, is looked upon as not merely a violation of his rights as a human being, but also an act of barbarous cruelty on a par with throwing a paralytic into a swimming pool without a floatation vest.


10 posted on 12/16/2021 8:19:59 PM PST by ExGeeEye (For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson