Longtime Democrat and Obama appointee Judge Steve C. Jones, has denied a temporary restraining order in Carter v.Kemp in federal district court in Georgia.
Sara Carter and Georgia Carry filed this lawsuit against Georgia Governor Kemp and Fulton County Probate Judge Pinkie Toomer. At issue is the state’s emergency order which suspended acceptance and processing of Georgia weapons carry licenses.
The plaintiffs claimed that the inability to obtain a license, coupled with the law making it illegal to carry without such a license, violated Carter’s Second Amendment rights. They requested a temporary restraining order against enforcement of that law barring carry until such time as license applications would again be accepted.
Judge Jones said no.
Much of this is the usual judicial pin-dancing we see in so many Second Amendment cases. Judge Jones found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the suspension of rights isn’t damaging. The plaintiffs, he ruled, have no federal standing under deprivation of rights statutes, for the same reason. And making it impossible to lawfully carry a firearm in public isn’t a violation of rights anyway because you can still carry at home.
Judge Jones’ argument that some rights are more equal than others is particularly noxious.
A violation of the First Amendment satisfies the irreparable harm requirement without any further showing
[…]
However, this is not true of all constitutional rights.
But this is the real kicker; my emphasis added:
Plaintiffs insist only “law abiding citizens” would be free to carry handguns in public. However, suspending O.C.G.A. § 16-11-126 would mean individuals who might not pass a GWL application investigation would be able to lawfully carry loaded handguns in public.
That is absolutely, demonstrably false. The only reason one would fail the licensing background check is if the applicant is a prohibited person; i.e.- one who may not lawfully possess a firearm. Both federal law and state law are clear on this.
Temporarily suspending the requirement for a license in no way suspends 18 U.S. Code § 922 and O.C.G.A. 16-11-131 definitions of prohibited persons. Lifting the license requirement does not magically make those laws vanish in a puff of fairy dust.
Felons remain felons, unable to lawfully carry.
The one class of persons who might be allowed to lawfully carry a firearm if the plaintiffs succeeded would be those 18 to 20 years of age who are not prohibited persons. Georgia only issues licenses to those 21 years of age or more. But those people — not being prohibited — would pass the licensing background check anyway.
Judge Jones’ bizarre assertion that prohibited persons could lawfully carry still makes no sense. Hizzoner appears to be an idiot, liar, or both.
Yet another example of why judicial appointments mater.
A violation of t̶h̶e̶ F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶n̶d̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ “some Animals” satisfies the irreparable harm requirement without any further showing
[…]
However, this is not true of all c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶i̶t̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ “Animals” rights.
Orwell nailed it all, except the years it would happen.
I wonder if he’d be willing to consider any other Amendment to be that way. The 13th? Maybe the 14th? How about the 11th, so everyone can sue the state for this B.S. under the claim that The Second Amendment is more important than The Eleventh?
Exactly this ^
“Judge Jones found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the suspension of rights isn’t damaging”
So, concomitantly, Judge Jones would have no problem with suspending women’s ability to vote .. at some precincts, or to ‘obtain an abortion’ .. since they could just perform an abortion at home, or telling Blacks to get tfo .. ‘because they can always go eat somewhere else’..?
But then, it’s difficult to discern which side Jones is actually on. The asinine nature of his ruling —
“plaintiffs lack standing because the suspension of rights isn’t damaging, / plaintiffs have no federal standing under deprivation of rights statutes, for the same reason. / and making it impossible to lawfully carry a firearm in public isn’t a violation of rights anyway because you can still carry at home.”
.. is so wildly partisan, poorly drawn, and in violation of prior restraint in (the arguably troubled) Heller’s absolute stabilization of the Second Amendment as an Individual Right, that prevail on appeal is already built-in.
‘making it impossible to (exercise a right) isn’t a violation of rights’ — ???
I mean, .. is he an Idiot?, or a closet Constitutional Carry activist?
The same shit is happening in Florida…
Look who the AG Secretary is. Stolen offices have consequences.
Another reason judges should be elected, have therm limits, or the process to impeach them should be much easier. Any judge that denies people their constitutional rights should be expunged.
Some judges are. Some benches see appointments, and others are filled by popular election.
damn few. In Iowa judges are elected (though not contested) and must be reapproved periodically.
WOW, the absurd mental gymnastics this judge must have gone through to come up with his ruling must look like literal spaghetti.
Every thing Obummer did turns to 💩 , Judges included. Bad decision from a judge appointed by the worst president in the 20th century…🖕🏿
I hate to be nit picky but it’s the 21st century and the 20th century had some much worse presidents like FDR.
No nit picking there, as bad as Obama was, FDR was far worse. From the NFA to Court Packing and all the government expansion in between FDR was the worst president this country has ever had.
Barry was not president in the 20th Century.
If you can “still carry at home”, become a street person and carry on.
We elected these people to lead, not to be overlords. When elected officials enforce unjust laws then we have the permissions, and the freedom of speech to say ‘no’.
If a hair cut is good enough for you, it’s good enough for me.
Any word on an appeal of this mind-numbingly stupid ruling?
File an appeal and thank whatever deity you believe in that Trump will have 4 more years to replace rbg and many more.
Concealed is concealed.
I was on the phone last night visiting with a felon who does felon things. He was lamenting crime business is down. “Right now , law enforcement is weak, I could get away with about anything,, but you can’t do nothing, everyone is sitting at home with a gun.” So there it is
In other words, to get a ruling, someone would need to subject themselves to arrest and (ironically) risk becoming a prohibited person.
More of an argument than ever for constitutional carry in some form (open or concealed).
What needs to happen is someone the judge cares for is put on a situation where carrying a gun would have protected or saved them. Then he might get it. Until it hits home they carry on.
Since you are thinking it are you going to go ahead and commit the deed?
From your bible Matthew 5:27-30
[email protected]
Yeah, but this is not a SC Justice, just a puke judge. To make a difference there would need to be thousands of such occurrences, all over the country. We should just rejoice that Osama did such a shitty job of appointing judges, left that chore for Hillary. *SURPRISE!!!*
Instead of saying longtime democrat just say, longtime Rat…we”ll know who you’re talking about.
Work from your house for two to six hrs every day, and start getting averaging 10-3000 bucks at the end of every week. Read more information here>． http://www.0.gp/a728L
I believe the whole ordeal is a load of shit. Repugnant to the constitution and all that. Concealed is just that. Judges that willfully violate civil rights or allow it to continue, should be publicly executed as a reminder to the rest that WE WILL NOT tolerate it.
Never trust a black robe
Could roughly describe this twit and who selected him before a search. SO predictable.