• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

GCO Update - Judge Shoob Dismisses GCO's Case!

I

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
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.
 
J

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
J

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
imported post

Samuel Adams wrote:
I believe this to be part of the process to incorporate the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A

asbrand

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
11
Location
Marietta, Georgia, USA
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.
Click to expand...

...so...what part of that did you not understand?

:what: :shock: :question:
 
R

rmodel65

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
488
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


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.​
 
I

ilbob

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
778
Location
, Illinois, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...


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.
​
Click to expand...
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.
 
R

rmodel65

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
488
Location
, ,
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
 
G

GeorgiaGlocker

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
19
Location
, , USA
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.
Click to expand...

...so...what part of that did you not understand?

:what: :shock: :question:
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
M

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
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.
Click to expand...


Samuel Adams, did you read what you posted before you posted it? :?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top