A Huge Error in the Law

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, Dec 27, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    People hold misconceptions sometimes, and it gets in the way of their reasoning. Sometimes these people might be in law enforcement, thinking a "public gathering" is anywhere 15 or more people happen to be, :roll: thus placing almost every public place off limits. Other times, it might be a judge, who is sitting on your case. :shock:

    The following is REAL Georgia case law, and it is about as wrong as can be.

    The interpretation of OCGA § 16-11-124(3) is a matter of first impression; the reason for prohibiting sawed-off shotguns is not. As stated by the Supreme Court of Georgia, the evil of sawed-off shotguns is that they "are of a size such as can easily be concealed and which are adapted to and commonly used for criminal purposes." Thus, the legislature found it appropriate to "prohibit the keeping and carrying of sawed-off shotguns," except under limited circumstances. Three of those exceptions apply only to a limited class of people who have a legitimate reason to possess a working sawed-off shotgun: law enforcement personnel, servicemen who possess them in the line of duty, and certain importers and manufacturers. Because the general public, as a rule, has no legitimate reason to possess such a dangerous weapon, the legislature obviously deemed it appropriate to authorize the public to possess sawed-off shotguns only when they are inoperative and can do no harm.

    State v. Watson, 249 Ga.App. 256, 547 S.E.2d 789 (2001).

    Anybody notice that he just skips over the fact that anybody in the general public paying the $5 tax (or $200 tax) can readily own them, even without a "legitimate reason to possess such a dangerous weapon?"

    In fairness, the case was about whether the firearm was functional, so this issue was not argued, but then maybe the judge should not speak past the arguments and thus enshrine this nonsense into case law.

    Be careful out there!
  2. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    I spent a good bit of time today browsing the municode today after your other post on DeKalb specific knife law.

    Atlanta, City of

    Sec. 106-268. Certificate of approval.

    (a) Generally. No dealer in firearms, or any employee, servant or agent of such dealer, shall sell, transfer, deliver or dispose of in any way an assault weapon, a pistol, revolver or short-barrelled firearm less than 15 inches in length as provided in this section, unless the prospective purchaser shall have first obtained a certificate of approval from the police chief and submitted such to the dealer.

    So... in the city of Atlanta, you can't buy an "assault weapon"? I don't even know of any funstores inside that jurisdiction, but I was amazed to read it. It further lists a comprehensive process to sell an 'assault weapon' to include fingerprinting, approval from the police chief, maintenance of records... insane!

    This is a fascinating resource. Some of the ridiculous laws I found are downright ridiculous. The sheer VOLUME of laws on the books by counties is absoutely staggering. I firmly believe that EVERYTHING is illegal in this country.... if they want to charge you with something, they will find it!!


  3. ber950

    ber950 Active Member


    Chucks in Buckhead is in Atl. and a Class III dealer. Its unenforceabe because of preemtion.
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    It is an ordinance that would do nothing and so the only reason to pass it is so the voters would think their commissioner was doing something even though it would not have worked if the state didn't have preemption.

    Since you can by a rifle from any one in the state (and I believe outside the state if in person) and bring it back to that county, it just punishes dealers. In fact only one of the last 3 guns I have purchased have been bought in the county I live in.
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    I think that was the intent. I really do not think they thought that a reporting requirement for every pistol sold in the jurisdiction was going to do anything about crime. They did not want gun dealers in Atlanta.