Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Consider this when stopped for OPEN CARRY

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Consider this when stopped for OPEN CARRY

    For those with Permits to Carry, there is much to know.

    Research is currently being done by Attorney Rachel Baird on the appeal brief in the Goldberg v. Glastonbury case.

    The finished brief to the Second Circuit will filed later this week together with the supporting documents.

    Here is a sample of the research that Attorney Baird has found.

    In 1991, the Georgia Court of Appeals highlighted this fact when it concluded that a McDonald's restaurant, though being a public place, did not rise to the level of a public gathering." The court noted that the focus of the inquiry into whether a place is a "public gathering" as contemplated by Code section 16-11-127 is "not on the 'place' but on the 'gathering' of people."' In that case, the appellee was arrested in a McDonald's restaurant and charged with violation of the Public Gathering Law despite being licensed to carry a concealed weapon. The trial court dismissed the case and the court of appealsupheld this
    decision, stating that "such a construction would render licensing statutes unnecessary because of the potential of violating the statutes by carrying a weapon outside one's
    household, in public, where the possibility exists that people might gather around someone carrying a weapon."1
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 03-15-2011 at 09:44 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NY-CT
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    For those with Permits to Carry, there is much to know.

    Research is currently being done by Attorney Rachel Baird on the appeal brief in the Goldberg v. Glastonbury case.

    The finished brief to the Second Circuit will filed later this week together with the supporting documents.

    Here is a sample of the research that Attorney Baird has found.

    In 1991, the Georgia Court of Appeals highlighted this fact when it concluded that a McDonald's restaurant, though being a public place, did not rise to the level of a public gathering." The court noted that the focus of the inquiry into whether a place is a "public gathering" as contemplated by Code section 16-11-127 is "not on the 'place' but on the 'gathering' of people."' In that case, the appellee was arrested in a McDonald's restaurant and charged with violation of the Public Gathering Law despite being licensed to carry a concealed weapon. The trial court dismissed the case and the court of appealsupheld this
    decision, stating that "such a construction would render licensing statutes unnecessary because of the potential of violating the statutes by carrying a weapon outside one's
    household, in public, where the possibility exists that people might gather around someone carrying a weapon."1

    What's the theory here? It's been a while since I read the decision transcript but I don't remember how this is relevant.
    "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Posting Permissions

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