Edward Peruta
Regular Member
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
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: