GCO > Georgia > AR15.COM

Posted: 8/8/2008 4:33:01 PM EDT

I have to admit I've never been more proud to be a member of any organization before in my life. Hopefully I'll be able to reprint why shortly...

Posted: 8/8/2008 4:37:35 PM EDT

[#1]

UGH!!!!

Okay, where's my GCO email???? GCO is great about emailing updates...I'm going to be checking my email every 2.2 seconds now.

-Mrs.Monk

Posted: 8/8/2008 5:10:47 PM EDT

[#2]

I just got the mini-update but I don't think I saw what you are talking about.

what gives?

Posted: 8/8/2008 7:54:31 PM EDT

[#3]

Here's a few quotes from GCO's response to the city of atlanta and the airport...

Laboring under the misconception that state laws on topics such as the
carrying of firearms grant rights rather than restrict rights, Defendants struggle
with the concept that the State of Georgia, under H.B. 89, permits people with
GFLs to carry firearms in the Airport. This is just not true. H.B. 89
decriminalized carrying guns in airports by people with GFLs. H.B. 89 did not
grant a right. It removed a restriction.

With no federal or local laws restricting the carrying of firearms at the
Airport, the only jurisdiction that might exercise authority over this topic is the
State of Georgia. But, Defendants insist that Georgia has no such authority
because the federal government has occupied the field, leaving no room for state or
local regulation. Any laws that Georgia has regulating firearms at the airport are,
under Defendants’ logic, invalid and of no force or effect.
Thus, according to Defendants, the Airport is a gun-friendly island in a sea
of state regulation. Anyone prohibited from carrying a pistol (without a GFL) or
from carrying a concealed firearm (without a GFL) or from carrying a firearm in
an airport (without a GFL) is free to load up and holster her firearm when she
enters Airport property.

If Defendants’
truly believe that Georgia has no power to regulate carrying firearms in airports,
why do Defendants arrest people for carrying firearms in the Airport and charge
them with violating O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127? Either Defendants do not believe their
own arguments or Defendants are knowingly and willfully detaining, arresting,searching, and prosecuting people for something that Defendants assert is not a
crime.

Finally, lapsing into policy arguments, Defendants assail Plaintiffs’ (nonexistent)
suggestion that the Airport would be more secure “by allowing untrained
civilians to enter the Airport with lethal weapons.” It is not for this Court to determine
whether it is “safer” not to arrest falsely people legally carrying firearms. Plaintiffs
raise the issue of what the law is. Defendants are arguing their notion of what the law
should be. Defendants have no authority to set any “effective safety policy” regarding
carrying of firearms, and they know it (Plaintiffs and others already have litigated that
issue with Defendants multiple times).
In an attempt to show “harm,” Defendants speculate, with no evidence offered,
that allowing “thousands of people to carry legal weapons” would cause “staggering”
harm to them. Such speculation is meaningless, but people already are carrying
firearms in the Airport as a result of HB 89. Defendants have suffered no harm at all,
because they do not even seem to be aware it is happening.

Posted: 8/8/2008 8:03:09 PM EDT

[#4]

Defendants pretend that citizen carry of firearms creates a greater risk then law
enforcement carry of firearms. However, law enforcement has a similar risk of
accidental discharges as the citizen of Georgia. Special Agent Lee Paige of the Drug
Enforcement Agency received international fame following his speech at the Orlando
Youth Minority Golf association when he accidentally discharged his firearm into his
own foot. (The Sydney Morning Herald, Gun Safety Lesson Goes Off Like A Shot
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gun-safety-copshooting/
2006/04/23/1145730809084.html viewed on 08/07/08) Being a highly
trained professional is no more likely to prevent accidental discharges than any other
criteria, and attempts to ban those firearms they do not have control over. The rights of
the citizens of Georgia to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures are more
important than the city’s baseless fears.

The real reason Defendants do not want the Court to consider the video is
that it clearly reveals that the legislators, even those opposed to H.B. 89, knew it
would decriminalize carrying firearms in the Airport for GFL holders. Evidence
that is adverse to the opposing party is not to be equated with “unfairly
prejudicial.”

With their response,
Defendants filed a hodge-podge of irrelevant affidavits, internet articles, and letters
from various organizations. Under Fed. R. Ev. 402, neither the affidavits nor any of
the other “evidence” are relevant to any issue raised in Plaintiff’s motion and do not
speak to the issue of whether there actually is a legal bar on firearms in the unsecured
areas of the airport, i.e., whether the Defendants’ “policy” of arresting people who are
breaking no laws is in violation of the Constitution. Defendants filed internet articles
Case 1:08-cv-02171-MHS Document 36 Filed 08/08/2008 Page 1 of 5
−2−
consisting of various news media reports pertaining to violent crimes and a “Brady
Campaign report” on the same issue. Even if these were somehow “evidence,” they
do not even tangentially relate to issues in Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant also filed
letters from airport-related groups expressing their own policy wishes. Other than the
affidavits, there is not even a plausible basis for suggesting that such items should be
“filed” with a federal court.

It is not a common practice for litigants to use their computer to enter search
terms into “Google” and then file with the federal court whatever turns up.

Posted: 8/9/2008 3:34:00 AM EDT

[#5]

I've always said that the next 2nd Amendment case to SCOTUS needs to be run by GCO.

Posted: 8/9/2008 4:54:25 PM EDT

[#6]

It very well may be.

Posted: 8/10/2008 6:36:25 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I have to admit I've never been more proud to be a member of any organization before in my life.

+1, me too!

Posted: 8/10/2008 6:58:15 AM EDT

[#8]

I'm proud too.

Its really fighting for our rights.

Posted: 8/10/2008 7:13:22 AM EDT

[#9]

Every state needs it own GCO. What a great organization.

Posted: 8/10/2008 7:20:50 AM EDT

[#10]

Someone needs to open up GCOA, Georgia Carry.org- America!!!

Posted: 8/10/2008 1:34:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Okay so I'm a little late to the party but I just signed up w/ GCO while at the gun show in Gwinnett and rounded up my sign in $$$ to $20.

But damm glade they are getting it done.

7mm

Posted: 8/10/2008 2:37:11 PM EDT

[#12]

Just sent in $20 so I can contribute in some way to the great work that is being done.

Posted: 8/10/2008 3:04:20 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Someone needs to open up GCOA, Georgia Carry.org- America!!!

How about America Carry Org?

"ACO filed a lawsuit today in federal court..."

Probably would do a lot more good than the NRA.

Posted: 8/10/2008 3:44:18 PM EDT

[#14]

If you want to read GCO's latest bitch slap of the City of Atlanta, click here:

GCO Response To ATL

Its an interesting read and very educational. Tommorrow will be eventful.

Don't forget that the Airport suit is a sideline for GCO. The main event is the Senate Committee hearings on Georgia's Gun Laws on Tuesday at 10AM at the Capital. These hearings are important as its part of the plan to get rid of Public Gathering. Please consider attending the hearings to show your support for repealing Public Gathering restrictions.

I'm proud to stand with every member of GCO!

Warning

Confirm Action

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - GCO

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - GCO