GCO Sues Stone Mountain Over Gun Ban

[DJAteOhAte]

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2008/05/19/gco-sues-stone-mountain-over-gun-ban/

GCO has filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Dekalb County against the Stone Mountain Memorial Association, seeking to have SMMA’s ban on possession or carrying a firearm in Stone Mountain Park declared invalid. A copy of the complaint can be viewed here.

 

[KingTiger]

Keep putting the hammer down GCO! Congratulations on the recent victory over the city of ATL and the passage of HB89. The spring luncheon was great also. The crap that comes out of da Maya & the AJC makes me want to puke on a regular basis. Keep up the excellent work, I'm proud to be a member.

 

[Cacique500]

This one seems like a no brainer when you read the lawsuit papers. I loved the Asst. Atty Generals response..."We respectfully disagree"...with no further citation as to why.

The next law we need to pass is to punish (civil/criminal) our elected officials (especially attorneys who should know better) when they use the authority of their office support extraneous "lower level" laws that are clearly in violation of established state law. I have one word for the Asst. Atty General of Georgia... PREEMPTION!

 

[Jim K]

Isn't the ban a little late?

"Sorry, sir, but in order to prevent violence, we prohibit possession of firearms here at Stone Mountain. You will just have to surrender your guns, General Sherman."

Jim

 

[DJAteOhAte]

Isn't the ban a little late?

Late? It's been on their books for years.

 

[Randy in Arizona]

DJ, read the whole post.

I am typing this slowly, just for you!

 

[bensdad]

Looks like a slam-dunk. How does one become AAG without a fundamental working knowledge of the law?

 

[brigadier]

The next law we need to pass is to punish (civil/criminal) our elected officials (especially attorneys who should know better) when they use the authority of their office support extraneous "lower level" laws that are clearly in violation of established state law. I have one word for the Asst. Atty General of Georgia... PREEMPTION!

Personally, I would love to find a safe way to punish juries for oath violations. That would clean allot of this up real quick.

 

[ctdonath]

Darkly amusing that possession is forbidden at a park devoted to celebration of the lauded acts of armed men.



(Stone Mountain is the South's version of Mount Rushmore.)

 

[ronwill]

The only problem I see with this, and I hope I'm wrong, is that Stone Mountain may not be a true state park. While it is overseen by a state run agency, it's managed by a private corporation (the same one that manages several other "theme" parks). I hope the court sees it as a full fledged state park and throws out the ban.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

The only problem I see with this, and I hope I'm wrong, is that Stone Mountain may not be a true state park. While it is overseen by a state run agency, it's managed by a private corporation (the same one that manages several other "theme" parks). I hope the court sees it as a full fledged state park and throws out the ban.

Stone Mountain is NOT a State Park.

The case against them has nothing to do with the recent passage of HB89. Read the complaint for the details.

 

[ronwill]

DJAteOhAte, I have read the complaint. The preemption statute states that local governments can not pass laws above those of the state. If Stone Mountain is a private park, the preemption statute does not apply. It's much like Alpine Amusement Park, American Adventures, Lake Winnepesaukah, Six Flags Over Georgia, Wild Adventures, or any other private park in that case. This means they would be able to prohibit guns within the park. It must be remembered that HB 89 covers only state parks, not private parks. It would allow keeping your firearms in the parking lot though.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

DJAteOhAte, I have read the complaint.

Then why do you keep bringing up State Parks and private property?

Every preemption case that GCO has filed has been judged or settled in our favor. There's no reason to think the winning streak will end with SMMA.

 

[ronwill]

DJAteOhAte, believe me I hope that it is determined by the court that, as a result of being overseen by a state agency, it should be treated as a state park. If the court determines it is a private park, forcing them to allow guns is no different than the anti's trying to force law abiding citizens not to own firearms. This is why I keep bringing up State Park vs. Private Park. I really, really hope it works our way though.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

The question before the court is not whether Stone Mountain Park is public or private.

The case is about whether or not SMMA has the power to create and enforce ordinances regulating the carry of firearms.

 

[ronwill]

Alright, let's get the ordinance out of SMMA's. What do we do if the company managing the park posts "No Guns"? As a private park, they would be allowed to do this. I may not be explaining what I'm trying to say clearly and I think we all want the same thing. Stone Mountain Park may be a tricky area is all I'm saying.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

SMMA regulates Stone Mountain Park through their ordinances. If the court says they can't ban guns, then they can't put up "no guns" signs at the gate.

The Park is publicly owned and operated since SMMA is a creation of the state government.