Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: GCO Update - Judge Shoob Dismisses GCO's Case!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hinesville, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    Deleted by request of the author. My appologies to MP for not reading the article in its entirety.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    It has occurred to me more than once that the proper venue for a determination of what state law means is a state court not a federal one.



  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    ilbob wrote:
    It has occurred to me more than once that the proper venue for a determination of what state law means is a state court not a federal one.
    That is correct. Unless state law is clearly established, the proper manner for handling this issue would be for the federal court to submit to the state supreme court a certified question of law to ascertain what the state law is on a particular subject.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hinesville, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    187

    Post imported post

    I believe this to be part of the process to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Samuel Adams wrote:
    I believe this to be part of the process to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.
    I am puzzled.

    This case can be decided squarely on the state statute. Whenever a court can resolve a case via a statute rather than a constitution, it is duty-bound as a matter of judicial restraint to decide the case based on the statute and remain absolutely silent on the alleged constitutional issue that was rendered moot by the controlling statute. The Georgia General Assembly passed a bill that authorized GFL holders to carry handguns in the non-sterile area of Georgia airports, among other places. That will apparently be resolved in short order when the case is appealed.

    The only possible constitutional implication of this case is the threat of false arrests for acts that are not illegal--and that would be a fairly well-settled 4th Amendment issue.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Marietta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    This email Update is not for posting on internet fora. Please use your own words and your own thoughts should you choose to publish anything about the information contained in this GCO Update. In other words, this GCO Update is for GCO members only.
    ...so...what part of that did you not understand?

    :what: :shock:



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    +1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    ilbob wrote:
    It has occurred to me more than once that the proper venue for a determination of what state law means is a state court not a federal one.
    That is correct. Unless state law is clearly established, the proper manner for handlign this issue would be for the federal court to submit tot he state supreme court a certified question of law to ascertain what the state law is on a particular subject.

    but this case was a federal suit against atlanta under section 1983 because they openly stated they were gonna violate bearden's rtkba under color of law by arresting him for doing something legal

    Section 1983 provides:
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.


  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    rmodel65 wrote:
    WVCDL wrote:
    ilbob wrote:
    It has occurred to me more than once that the proper venue for a determination of what state law means is a state court not a federal one.
    That is correct. Unless state law is clearly established, the proper manner for handlign this issue would be for the federal court to submit tot he state supreme court a certified question of law to ascertain what the state law is on a particular subject.

    but this case was a federal suit against atlanta under section 1983 because they openly stated they were gonna violate bearden's rtkba under color of law by arresting him for doing something legal

    Section 1983 provides:
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
    Again, do you not have a clue how things work? The application of state law is a matter for the state courts to determine. Until the state courts determine just what this very murky law actually means, there really is no actionable cause. I think GCO bit off more than it could chew. Live and learn.

    Hopefully GCO goes for a more modest goal next time they go to court.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    489

    Post imported post

    the case is about beardens civil rights, the proper venue is federal court. the judge was martin shoob was a gift from jimmy carter is overturned quite often. this case is about incorporating the 2nd amendment to applly to the states. maybe MP will be back later to explain it more in depth than me

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    rmodel65 wrote:
    +1
    Agreed.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    asbrand wrote:
    This email Update is not for posting on internet fora. Please use your own words and your own thoughts should you choose to publish anything about the information contained in this GCO Update. In other words, this GCO Update is for GCO members only.
    ...so...what part of that did you not understand?

    :what: :shock:

    Agreed.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Samuel Adams wrote:
    Dear GCO Member,

    This email Update is not for posting on internet fora. Please use your own words and your own thoughts should you choose to publishanythingabout the information contained inthis GCO Update. In other words, this GCO Update is for GCO members only.

    Samuel Adams, did you read what you posted before you posted it? :?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Samuel Adams wrote:
    Deleted by request of the author. My appologies to MP for not reading the article in its entirety.
    Thanks!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •