[gizmo5]

Doors are open to public scrutiny. Tear it down and rebuild it as you see fit:

I hereby tender my identification/papers and have positively identified myself to you for your safety
I have committed no crime and request that my identification/papers be returned to me and that I be allowed to depart immediately.
If you are not going to allow me to leave at this time, I will assume that this is more than a brief investigating stop and that I am under arrest.
If I am under arrest I hereby invoke my right to remain silent and do not wish to make any statements, nor do I wish to answer any questions relating to the legality of carrying a firearm.
I do not consent to a search of my person, vehicle, or any other property without my written permission.
I immediately invoke my right to an attorney and request that I be allowed to contact GeorgiaCarry.Org.

I will answer no further questions.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT OUTLINES MY RIGHTS ABOVE:
U.S. Constitution 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments

 

[Sine Nomen]

Doors are open to public scrutiny. Tear it down and rebuild it as you see fit:

I hereby tender my identification/papers and have positively identified myself to you for your safety
I have committed no crime and request that my identification/papers be returned to me and that I be allowed to depart immediately.
If you are not going to allow me to leave at this time, I will assume that this is more than a brief investigating stop and that I am under arrest.
If I am under arrest I hereby invoke my right to remain silent and do not wish to make any statements, nor do I wish to answer any questions relating to the legality of carrying a firearm.
I do not consent to a search of my person, vehicle, or any other property without my written permission.
I immediately invoke my right to an attorney and request that I be allowed to contact GeorgiaCarry.Org.

I will answer no further questions.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT OUTLINES MY RIGHTS ABOVE:
U.S. Constitution 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments

Yeah, but that assumes that the cop knows how to read, which often seems questionable.

 

[Rammstein]

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT OUTLINES MY RIGHTS ABOVE:
U.S. Constitution 2nd...Amendments

The Second Amendment is not applicable in the state of Georgia.

 

[gizmo5]

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT OUTLINES MY RIGHTS ABOVE:
U.S. Constitution 2nd...Amendments

The Second Amendment is not applicable in the state of Georgia.

:shock: NO COMMENT OF SUCH MAGNITUDE CAN BE MADE WITHOUT EXPLANATION. PLEASE :wink:

 

[Rammstein]

check my link above.

 

[Rammstein]

Brewer v. State in pertinent part:

We find no merit in appellant's argument that OCGA § 16-13-49 violates his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As this Court has long recognized, the construction given the Federal constitution by the United States Supreme Court is conclusive, Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 1, 8-9 (72 SE 271) (1911), and under controlling opinions from that Court, the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" imposes a limitation on only Federal, not state, legislative efforts.

 

[gizmo5]

Read it, but it does not throw out the 2nd.

 

[gizmo5]

Kind of like "you can add but you cannot take away" thought process to the UCMJ. The state says that the arguement doe snot violate his right, but it seems certain other situatuions arose to prevent him from carrying a gun.

 

[Rammstein]

Read it, but it does not throw out the 2nd.

Brewer v. State in pertinent part:

We find no merit in appellant's argument that OCGA § 16-13-49 violates his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As this Court has long recognized, the construction given the Federal constitution by the United States Supreme Court is conclusive, Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 1, 8-9 (72 SE 271) (1911), and under controlling opinions from that Court, the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" imposes a limitation on only Federal, not state, legislative efforts.

Yes it does.

 

[gizmo5]

The state imposed a "controlled substance law" that overuled his 2nd. Or so it seems... Ready for your rebuttle. :wink:

 

[Rammstein]

It didn't overrule his Second Amendment rights at all. The court found that he does not have any such thing as a Second Amendment right because the SA is only binding upon the Federal government. Since the individual was only dealing with the police power within the state itself and not big daddy fedgov, then he can not claim infringement of his SA rights. There is no SA in Georgia so he cannot claim such a right.

 

[gizmo5]

Brewer had "controlled substances" and therefore the state confiscated his firearms. The constitution backs a good standing moral ctizen, but a state can outline (so it seems) what they feel a good citizen is. In the case you provided he gave up his 2nd by possesing drugs. The state made their statement as to clarify that he was wrong by saying he still had his constitutional rights even after he had broken the laws that the state had made as guidlines to be afforded that right.

For the record...

I am on neither side of brewer vs. state

:wink:

 

[Rammstein]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has not been incorporated to the states...yet.

He didn't give up his Second Amendment rights, he never had them. (when it comes to dealing with the state of Georgia; which he was)

 

[GAGunOwner]

Unfortnately Ramm is right here.

According to the GA Supreme Court the 2nd amendment does not apply to state action, i.e., any state law concerning weapons. Basically they are saying that the State of Georgia can pass any gun control law they want as long as it is permissable under the state constitution. They are basically reiterating that the 2nd amendment has not been incorporated by the SCOTUS so it is not a safeguard against state action.

 

[gizmo5]

So your telling me that the 2nd is not at all incorporated into the states? Please show me how? Am I missing somethin here? Did I swear to defend a right that in itself none of the states will even look at? So GA can just say, "You dont have the right to keep and bear arms" or did you mean something else by saying:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has not been incorporated to the states...yet

 

[ptsmith24]

It isn't all of the states...we're talking about GA.

 

[gizmo5]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has not been incorporated to the states...yet.

 

[GAGunOwner]

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT OUTLINES MY RIGHTS ABOVE:
U.S. Constitution 2nd...Amendments

The Second Amendment is not applicable in the state of Georgia.

Just because it isn't officially recognized, doesn't mean that we don't all know that it should be. He is asserting that he believes that he has a second amendment right to carry a gun. I believe that this is most likely the position of almost everyone on this board and GCO.

In a court case "we" would assert our claim of a second amendment right, even though it might not get us far.

The SCOTUS said that Dred Scott wasn't a person, and thus had no standing in court, does that make it so?

 

[wsweeks2]

From a legal perspective in the State of Georgia, Ramm et al are right.

IMO, the framers made the first 9 amendments not open for discussion and reserved for the Federal Government when they authored the 10th.

Unfortunately the powers that be don't see it that way.

 

[ptsmith24]

And the cop "believes" that he is right... I wonder who would win in court :roll: