Georgia Representative Dares Atlanta to Arrest Him for Carrying A Concealed Fiream

[moga]

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/M....jsp?contentId=6888554&version=1&locale=EN-US

 

[TAB]

TAB what exactly do you think should happen in this instance?

how about going thru the GA court system... no reason to take this to a federal level. After all this is about GA law.

 

[moga]

....no comment.

 

[USMC - Retired]

moga, While I agree that the Atlanta city attorneys are a joke that is not the reason they lost the parks ban case. The reason they lost was because GCO was clearly right and the City of Atlanta was clearly wrong. The people of Atlanta need to dock the Mayors pay for wasting taxpayer money fighting these things in court.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

TAB,

DeCosta made it a federal issue by claiming federal protection for his position.

In addition, by taking it to federal court, he is inviting a federal decision which benefits ALL of us.

In case you have been asleep since Thursday, the right to keep and bear arms is now a federally protected individual right. ANY legislator who does his best to enhance those protections is doing a GOOD thing in my book.

The time for playing nice and being gentle is over. Heller gave our side some serious momentum and now is the best time to make use of it.

 

[Guillermo]

Tyris,

Go to the public profile of the person you want to ignore (click on their name) and there is a button on the right to add them to your "ignore list"

 

[TAB]

Did you actually read the dc v heller ruling?

concealed carry was not inculded as a right.

 

[moga]

USMC Retired - wasn't that the complaint where they repeated over and over that they didn't know enough to respond to the points of contention made in the lawsuit? Basically I had that in mind when I commented that they were a joke.

However, I also don't think they understand what is written in GA Code very well. Selective interpretation, perhaps.

 

[moga]

Here is the responses from the cities best and brightest that I had in mind.

http://www.georgiacarry.com/fulton_cities_parks/Answer of Atlanta.pdf

They actually collected pay to write that crap? Hell, I could have done that.

The people of Atlanta need to dock the Mayors pay for wasting taxpayer money fighting these things in court.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[USMC - Retired]

Mogo, While it is true that they were and remain greatly ignorant of Georgia law, the outcome of the case would not have changed even if were not. Except perhaps they might have been able to convince the mayor that she was fighting a lost cause.

 

[moga]

Mogo, While it is true that they were and remain greatly ignorant of Georgia law, the outcome of the case would not have changed even if were not.

Naturally. We are in total agreement on that and all other points Gunny.

 

[Water-Man]

TAB... I wish you would attempt to move into my house!

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

TAB is a good subject.

 

[Henry Bowman]

but there is a diffrence he has a choice, he does not have to go there armed, she [Rosa Parks] did not have a choice, she could only be black.

She could have sat/stood in the back of the bus. The religion based analogy works, too, but I can't think of an example of civil disobedience involving religion as recognizable as the Rosa Parks example. The bigotry is the same in any case.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Moot point, as I understand it the lawmaker backed down and is going to go at this via court.

 

[ctdonath]

SN13 for the win.

not being able to enforce the laws it passes

Actually, with Heller winning just days before GA HR89 becoming law, pursuing the issue at state level is not taking advantage of opportunities. Sure, he could take it to state court, spend months pursuing it, and win. Thing is, he wants a lot more, and pursued a lot more which got whittled down to HR89; being an airport and thus included in federal jurisdiction, he can indeed "run to mommy" and have the administrator & mayor slapped down hard, and have the ruling apply not just to the Atlanta airport but ultimately extend, in short order, to the entire nation. Why take baby steps when you can sprint to the finish? Why stop at first when you can make a home run and win the game?

concealed carry was not inculded as a right.

Take this to federal court, and maybe it will be.

this is about GA law.

Thanks to Heller, this is also about a federal right.
Open carry is in legal fact an option at the Atlanta airport.
So many federal angles have just opened up it's making my head spin.

Now, where's that "ignore" option...

 

[Robert Hairless]

In an effort to attack the post and not the poster(TAB) I must point out that there are glaring grammatical errors as well as logical errors.

Nah, you must be kidding. And even if that's true, does that mean he should not be allowed to dominate a discussion? That would be un-American you bet. When a six-year-old kid enters a discussion we need to let him have his say and encourage him to express himself. That's what this country is all about.

So we might disagree with all the nonsense with which TAB is derailing this discussion but we must defend his right to derail any discussion he chooses and to say anything he likes. That's America.

What would America be like today if people were judged by what they said and how they said it? Would we still be the United States of America, the greatest country on Earth. (No offense intended against any other country, all of which are at least as great as the U.S. of A. and often greater.)

Are we to be a country in which the ignorant, ill-educated, and irrational are denied the right to lead us and to influence discussion? Can we afford to be intolerant of stupidity and wilfullness?

I think not.

 

[coloradokevin]

TAB,

I have to ask you...

If the owners/controllers of the property are the ones who make the decisions regarding it's use... Then how is this guy not doing the right thing???

As an LEO myself, I can tell you that we absolutely do not write the laws. This guy wrote a bill that was signed into law. He now wants to see that this law is followed in a place that his law has jurisdiction over.

Is that really wrong?

 

[ctdonath]

the lawmaker backed down and is going to go at this via court.

Certainly the better route if he can establish standing through other means. Getting arrested on principle has its place, but other options are usually preferable. If he has the administrator & mayor suitably on record, filing papers (as Tab advocated then qualified with "oh, I didn't mean those papers") will likely garner better results.
Also, appeals math dictates who you'd prefer to bring the issue to court in the first place; Parker being filed as it was forced DC to make the final appeal to SCOTUS, whereas being initiated with an arrest (and otherwise following the same legal path) likely would have stalled out at the DC Circuit.

 

[Robert Hairless]

City officials did not dispute the fact that properly permitted citizens can now carry handguns on MARTA. But, they said those people would not be permitted to carry their gun from the MARTA platform at the airport into the airport facility.

I hope that neither TAB nor anyone else minds if I return to the nominal subject of this thread.

Assuming that statement accurately represents the city's position, does the city have facilities at the MARTA platform where people legally carring self-defense firearms can check their guns before entering the airport?

Or is the city merely circumventing the new law by putting up a hurdle to legal carry on MARTA?

 

[blkbrd666]

Quote: "Can we afford to be intolerant of stupidity..."

+1 Robert. We shouldn't be intolerant of it...for it's actually quite amusing. Think about it. Have you heard anything else today that is so absurd. There is a point where absurdity becomes absolutely comical. Several people here have been laughing at this since it started, and he just keeps digging like a small dog after a big bone.

 

[xjchief]

I kind of like TAB's posts. It's funny/entertaining to see someone unable to support their positions try and justify them.

 

[Igloodude]

Let's see...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

And the author of the General Assembly legislation that prescribed the manner in which the arms may be borne is threatened with arrest for following that prescription?

Heller aside, this would seem to be an open-and-shut case as far as the Georgia state constitution goes...

 

[HonorsDaddy]

xjchief

If i want to see THAT I'll just read some garbage from the Brady Campaign.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Okay I did spend a while laughing about the exasperated "TAB, can you read?" someone posted here. I think that's what is described as a "rhetorical question." Funny though.

Here are just two of my favorites from this thread so far:

I don't see it has he is concerned about ANYONES rights, he is concerned in his own self intrests.

if you replaced CCW with something else, lets just say pronagrphy( which is protected under the 1a)

Given the nature of this forum I think that the moderators would be upset if I didn't add this safety warning:

Caution: Kids, if you replace CCW with pronagrphy you better make sure your pronagrph is working.

Lots of good stuff, though.