Georgia: Walters v. Kemp Injunction Denied

Walters. V. Kemp

Source: Northern District of Georgia web site

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones, who had previously denied a preliminary injunction in the Carter v. Kemp lawsuit to temporarily override the state restriction on unlicensed carry outside the home, during the COVID-19 emergency as the state of Georgia has stopped processing carry permit applications, struck again.

In the similar Walters v. Kemp et al. lawsuit filed by Lisa Walters, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition Judge Jones has once again stretched legal theory (and sanity) to the breaking point.

In the order denying the preliminary injunction, Jones found that:

Plaintiffs have not pointed to any binding case law which established the existence of such a right.

Except, as the judge continues, they did.

For example, they quote Caetano v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring), arguing . . .

“If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect” Plaintiff Walters and others like her, who wish to carry a handgun in public defense of themselves and their families during these times of societal challenge and unrest, “then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

Caetano v. Massachusetts was the case that established that stun guns are protected by the Second Amendment. Jones’ rationale is that since Caetano was about stun guns, then it doesn’t have anything to do with carrying firearms outside of the home. He seems to have not read the quoted passage from Alito’s concurrence in which the Court found that firearm are protected. Nor did he, apparently, note that the ruling began with this:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,

All…not merely stun guns. The basis of the Caetano ruling is that the right is already well established in case law. Further, Alito observed the right extends well beyond the home.

It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend “waiting for [her] outside.”

Having a defensive weapon outside the home is a constitutionally protected right. Judge Jones deliberately misconstrued the plaintiffs’ Caetano citation, ignoring the finding that all weapons are covered by Second Amendment, and pretends it only said stun guns.

That is judicial malfeasance. That Jones remains on the bench is one more reason that I have very little confidence in the courts.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    What do you expect from a commie judge appointed by O’bung’hole?

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Once again people left their Rights in the hands of A Court. Which once again denied them of their Rights. Same Game, Different State, Same Conclusion. When you play house rules with a deck stacked against you. Seriously what are you expecting to happen? Even had the ruling gone the other way. It guaranteed nothing. Next court overrules last court. Supreme court refuses to hear the case or sends it back to the same circus. The Court (any Court) has never been and will never be. Good stewards of Our Rights. As long as We the People continue to allow. Our Rights to be used as a pawn in a game. We are No better stewards than the Court is. Keep Your Powder Dry.

      1. avatar Thixotropic says:

        Nothing new.

        “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”
        Thomas Jefferson, 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roan

  2. avatar TexasJack says:

    That judge is a freaking idiot and when the civil war starts he needs to be tried for treason
    ..

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “That judge is a freaking idiot”

      The judge was no idiot, he wanted to deny people their civil rights, and he knew that would do it.

      What’s needed is legal payback on his ass…

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Does it HAVE to be legal? What can anyone legally do to a district judge for an evil, anti constitutional decision? He is the law! Just ask him.

      2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        He can be removed for judicial misconduct.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          Not by the citizenry. Only by the players in their game. And the players never get ejected.

  3. avatar SuspiciousFisherman says:

    Sounds like another candidate for open carry protests. We’ll get to DC eventually I guess…

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      You haven’t been paying attention for the last 15 years.

      1. avatar SuspiciousFisherman says:

        maybe you missed the point, and the sarcasm.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Unfortunately, such statements don’t come off as sarcasm these days. We are seeing COVID open carry protests where Republicans come out of house arrest in their cosplay attire and demand their human rights be respected by the government. When the government shows up the protesters put their hands up.

        2. avatar SuspiciousFisherman says:

          The government has not shown up and nobody has put their hands up. The protests remained peaceful. No police in riot gear etc etc, no local businesses looted etc etc. So tell me again how the government has done anything other than realize if they act improperly that it will only continue to go south for them. Besides, what the fuck are you doing to stand up for yourself? Criticizing people willing to open carry in front of the nation is not the best look for someone who seems to be taking advantages of all the privileges this nation has. I know we are not “free”, but this is a little better than Saudi Arabia, no? You act like because one group of larpers put their hands up in texas that militia’s don’t actually exist here in America. Maybe you need to leave the seclusion of your suburban California environment and go to a state where people openly advocate being members of them to open your eyes.

  4. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Case law is not law at all, it’s government BS masquerading as legitimate authority. Human rights are not opinions written by the “honorable” robed class.

    The so called justice system is rigged against the people. You only win when they let you. You’re better off buying your way through than fighting the system.

    1. avatar Ron says:

      I disagree with the majority of the things you post but I actually agree with you here. Case law/court made law, or “common law” is bullshit. It’s a tyrannical concept left over from British rule and has no place in a constitutional republic.

    2. avatar SuspiciousFisherman says:

      Do you wear knee pads when you greet the king? Since we all know you are not Bill Gates, what is your point? Do you have enough money to persuade politics to your agenda? Or to buy private militaries as your own security forces and have safe houses around the world? Nope. You don’t. So instead of waving the white flag why don’t you sack up and quit yer bitchen. Complaining does no good. Since you know we are just lowly pleebs, accept the fact that you may have to die to live free.

      1. avatar John A. Smith says:

        Plebe, not pleeb.

        1. avatar SuspiciousFisherman says:

          Yea, I didn’t know how to pronounce meme until about two years ago either.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        My point is you need to have a big pow wow with the Republicans that still believe a so called conservative judge will save them from the government that is suppressing their human rights via law enforcement and so called case law.

        I have been telling so called conservatives they will be forever waiting for a government judge to save them from government. Of course over 10 years later they are still waiting for that one case to save them from all gun control. They know the only other choice they have is to sacrifice and resist the enforcement by any means necessary.

        So here we are waiting another 4 years. Once those 8 years of Trump are over Republicans can go back to blaming the Democrat president. It’s much easier to blame a Democrat than to resist the enforcers and fight as needed.

        1. avatar SuspiciousFisherman says:

          I totally agree, I hate both parties. I agree the judiciary system is a joke too. But I don’t white flag it and then say “I told you so” from behind a keyboard either.

      3. avatar Ralph3 says:

        I dont wear knee pads, I wear a Hun and a Knife. If I’m permitted to great the king, I wont Bow.

        1. avatar Ralph 3 says:

          Crap phone wouldn’t do spell check on Hun ?
          I wear a Gun not a Hun..

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          I don’t know, I heard the Huns were pretty dangerous. ‘Beware the Hun in the sun!‘

  5. avatar John A. Smith says:

    Caetano v. Massachusetts is a per curiam decision. The limited question before the Court was whether stun guns were protected by the Second Amendment, nothing further.

    And Alito’s concurrence is not binding precedent, because it’s a concurrence, not a majority opinion. Honestly, speaking with 20 years of federal practice under my belt, I can say it doesn’t even rise to the level of dicta.

    So while you can say you disagree with Judge Jones on the result, you cannot claim that Justice Alito’s concurrence in Caetano represents a failure to follow binding precedent, because it isn’t binding. The only precidential value of Caetano is that stun guns are “arms” protected by the 2d Amendment.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      If only guns were like assholes.

    2. avatar Muhmawser says:

      I disagree partially. Alito’s concurrence is the textbook definition of dictum proprium and could serve as persuasive precedent in a different case.

      But the text of Alito’s concurrence is irrelevant to this case in my opinion. Caetano dealt with a Ma law prohibiting possession of teasers. Caetano doesn’t seem like an appropriate case to cite in any instance since the issue at hand in this case is not Georgia making firearms possession illegal, but Georgia temporarily changing regulations on the carrying of firearms outside of the home (which is still allowed to permit holders).

      But you are entirely correct about the authors here incorrectly writing about Alito’s concurrence in Caetano as if it were binding. I think compelling arguments could be made against Georgia in this case, but Caetano is not the one to base it on.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to bring your experience to bear on the issue. It’s very refreshing to hear opinions with weight, even if they disagree!

        I really think the state can do whatever they want, the Supremes have held that no right is absolute. In fact, I think in Texas some folks are citing Jacobson v Mass to support the state’s right to suspend abortion rights during the pandemic.

        “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.”

        This is a knife that cuts both ways.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    Not all grifters are city mayors. Some are Federal judges.

  7. avatar Debbie W. says:

    deny, deny, deny, deny, deny, deny….Just like the democrat party, Jim Crow and the kkk denied Black Americans who were living in fear their 2A Rights. Gun Control? It’a racist and nazi based agenda. Case Closed.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      You know Debbie, it sad as you keep trying to tsar every single Democrat in the world with the actions of folks who died 100 years ago.

      Under your logic, all Republicans are pedophiles like republican speaker of the house ‘Coach’ Dennis Hastert, who ended up convicted and imprisoned for spending millions of dollars to cover up his sexual assaults on male high school students. And that’s slightly more recent behavior than the Civil War so I think it absolutely is applicable in this case.

      Come on Debbie, put down the little boy and come out with your hands up!

  8. avatar Ark says:

    Has there been a single judge anywhere in the country who has actually pushed back against lockdowns?

    It really does seem like the judicial class believes the words “public health” revoke the constitution.

  9. avatar Ralph3 says:

    If the Judge cant make out what’s Written plainly, he needs Removed. If the Judge isnt Impartial, and instead imputs his own political bias into his Judgment, he needs Removed. This Judge is in my opinion needing Removed, if not tried for Acts Unbecoming of a Judge, or Treason by overstepping the judicial branch into the legislative branch. But either direction he Needs Removed and Stripped of Judicial Power.

  10. avatar Ralph3 says:

    Police and Judges have been trampling on We the People through out this Covid 19
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=665824584209177&id=100023449240871

  11. avatar SomeDudeThatHasAnAssloadOfGreentip says:

    Leftist activist judges, like all leftists are the enemy. They deserve no peace or quarter.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email