UPDATE: Judge Cranford's appellee brief has now been filed with the Georgia Court of Appeals and is available HEREkkennett said:Seems to me the judge will be forced to argue points in contradiction to common sense, much the same as the 'depends on what the definition of is is' type. Here is my fear: the C of A, boxed into a corner, rules either 1) the case is mooted (which is dumb because it contradicts very recent GA S Ct language about issues escaping judicial review), or 2) rules very narrowly against the judge regarding her particular technique, but leaves danglng the question of the drop dead 60 day deadline. Something like, "she has to follow the procedure laid out by the statute, but if that takes over 60 days, well that's OK." Perhaps we'll get a great ruling that can be paraphrased, 'read the rules and follow the rules.' Godspeed to this one.
Kkennett, that neatly sums it up for those not inclined to read the brief.kkennett said:Well, that was entirely uninspiring. Let's state about 4 times: "Although a literal reading of the statute says x, we've been doing y and enjoying it since 1974." Similarly, let's argue, "the Court simply cannot find that the statute means what it appears to mean when you read it." And finally, "we realize the legislature wrote, 'NCIS', but we suspect that they didn't really mean that." Good grief, Charlie Brown.
A new AG opinion will not change anything once the Court of Appeals speaks to the issue. The AG does not make law. Rather, he reviews the statutes and case law and then issues his opinion. In other words, his opinion is going to be whatever the Court of Appeals rules on the issue.kkennett said:And she does cite the AG opinion from 1978. Would be nice to have an updated version for a reply. Any word on Mr. Drolet's progress?
What if his new opinion is out before the Court of Appeals rules?Malum Prohibitum said:
That would be bad because we want a court order, not an administrative letter that could be changed on whim or new office holder.USMC - Retired said:What if his new opinion is out before the Court of Appeals rules?
So never running a NICS check before the change of law means by not runing NICS she was violating state policy, to continue to do so means she is violating law. Either way you slice it a nics check is or was required and the Judge does not trust it.â€¢ State law does not require a NICS check be conducted before a renewal permit is issued. While the State has a written policy to conduct NICS checks on renewal, a policy does not satisfy the Brady law requirements.