• 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.

Floyd County Chief Deputy being Sued by Georgia Carry Organization.

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
A Georgia Carry member, wishing to attend the "Wings Over Georgia" airshow being held at the Richard B. Russell Regional Airport, a publicly owned property, looked at the rules and regulations for said airshow and found something disturbing:
"All forms of weapons are prohibited. All persons, vehicles and hand carried items are subject to search at anytime while on the airport facility. Narcotics and paraphernalia are strictly prohibited. There is a no-tolerance standard for fighting or protesting at anytime. No political activity is authorized unless pre-approved by air show management. Failure to follow the rules will result in prosecution and removal from the airport facility."

Knowing full well that the Georgia Legislature had reserved unto itself all matters of regulating firearms (with the exception of discharge), he contacted the Floyd County Sheriff's Office and made inquiry on the 11th of September, asking what their authority to ban weapons was.

After some back and forth with the Sheriff's Office the member was forced to file suit which may be read below:
Georgia Carry v. Floyd County
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Worth reading. Well done! Thank you very much for not just "letting it go."

I'll be following this! Will it be resolved in time for the air show?
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Worth reading. Well done! Thank you very much for not just "letting it go."

I'll be following this! Will it be resolved in time for the air show?
per GeorgiaCarry.Org Floyd County Superior Court Chief Judge Walter Matthews has scheduled a hearing on October 8 at 9 a.m. in the Floyd County Courthouse in GCO’s case challenging Floyd County’s ban of guns at the Floyd County airport. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if the court will issue an interlocutory injunction to prohibit enforcement of the gun ban while the case is pending. The Wings Over North Georgia airshow will be held at the airport on October 18 and 19. The hearing will be at the Floyd County Courthouse at 3 Government Plaza in Rome.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Under Federal case law if a plaintiff asks for both injunctive relief as well as asks for a specific amount of monetary damages the court can award the monetary damages in lieu of the injunctive relief. This is why in Federal suits for both injunctive relief as well as money the amount is never specified.

Hopefully, Georgia case law is different in this respect. If not then Georgia Carry filed a lawsuit which might, at best, give them $100 and nothing else.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
California Right to Carry:

Although I can not Speak for The Georgia Carry Organization, The Reason why The Plaintiffs Asked for $100 is because
Our States' Preemption Statute Specifically Allows for that Amount of Punitive Damages under Georgia Code 16-11-173.

Unlike California, Georgia has a Definitive Preemption Statute regarding Firearms and Ammunition and Our Legislature
Clarified The Kinds and Types of Damages which can be Obtained in Case of a Violation of its Tenants.

However, Your Point was well taken and was very Informative. I was Unaware that was The Case at The Federal Level.

aadvark
 
Last edited:
Top