|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
GA: Judge won’t suspend handgun carry law during virus emergency
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A judge declined on Tuesday to suspend a Georgia law that requires people to have a license to carry a handgun after a gun rights group raised concerns because licenses aren’t being issued during the coronavirus emergency.
The same day that Gov. Brian Kemp declared a public health state of emergency, the chief judge of the Georgia Supreme Court declared a judicial emergency and instructed courts statewide to “suspend all but essential court functions” to help stem the spread of the virus. Several days later, the Council of Probate Court Judges of Georgia issued a memo saying the issuance of weapons carry licenses would be temporarily suspended. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(4/23/2020)
|
| THE GEORGIA JUDGES DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUSPEND GUN LICENSE ISSUANCE DURING THIS PERIOD. IT WILL TAKE THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON THIS MATTER AND I DOUBT THEY WOULD RULE ON THIS BLATENT VIOLATION OF THE SECOND ADMENDMENT. THESE JUDGES SHOULD BE ARRESTED FOR TREASON BY INTENTIONALLY VIOLATING THEIR SWORN DUTY. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
