[CountryGun]

Alright, I'm old and slow, and this may have been asked somewhere before. If so, point me to it.

Has consideration ever been given to a class action suit addressing the "chosen ones" exempt under OCGA 16-11-130. Seems like simple discrimination to me. What makes the life of a court clerk more worthy of the right to protect themselves than anyone else?

I would think a court would also question the two classes of citizens, and why they are treated so much differently. A judgment in favor of the rest of us would force the state to either delete 16-11-130 (Can anyone imagine the state ever stripping LEOs and others of their exemptions?) or rewrite the code to allow all citizens the same rights to carry.

Please don't cite training differences, as most of the exempt have not trained. I'd also note that retired military have likely trained as much or more than most LEO's. Why then are retired LEO's granted exemption while retired military are not. Don't misunderstand me. I certainly do not want any more added to the list of exempt professions! I'm just giving examples, and trying to understand why we have class systems under the law. Why aren't we all created equal?

 

[higabyte]

Being one of the "chosen one's", I'm going to have to say I like 16-11-130!!!! lol

 

[politenessman]

Why aren't we all created equal?

We are all created equal, but the law sees us differently.

I know, I'm being pedantic.

 

[dunkel]

Being one of the "chosen one's", I'm going to have to say I like 16-11-130!!!! lol

I carry on my exemption, too, but I'd still like to see it go.

Just do so in a way where I still don't have to pay for a permit lol. Either add permit holders to exemption list or just do away with any permit requirement altogether.

I'll take advantage of it as long as that's the law, but I'm not going to get upset if it changes. If it's done right, I might even join the fight to get rid of it.

 

[phantoms]

How about just getting citizens capable of legally owning guns added to the section, then we could do away with GWL requirement altogether.

 

[CountryGun]

How about just getting citizens capable of legally owning guns added to the section, then we could do away with GWL requirement altogether.

Agreed! Is a class action suit a reasonable approach to doing this? After all, most of us are in the lower class of citizens.

 

[gunsmoker]

a class action lawsuit is just a substitute for numerous regular lawsuits between the individuals harmed and [in this case] the government agency that is harming them.

Why go the "class action" route? Why not just one lawsuit from one offended citizen?

Even in a "class action" suit, you still have to have one or more individual plaintiffs to be the "class representative".
You use their facts and their circumstances to prove the case. You need details you can work with.

 

[CountryGun]

a class action lawsuit is just a substitute for numerous regular lawsuits between the individuals harmed and [in this case] the government agency that is harming them.

Why go the "class action" route? Why not just one lawsuit from one offended citizen?

Even in a "class action" suit, you still have to have one or more individual plaintiffs to be the "class representative".
You use their facts and their circumstances to prove the case. You need details you can work with.

I've given thought to being the one individual. I certainly take individual offense that my life is somehow considered lowlier than that of a court clerk. That said, I know it's a big undertaking, and expensive. My feeling, though maybe very erroneous, is that a "class action suit" would get more recognition in the judiciary. I was trying to get a feel as to whether there is support for such a move. By support, I do not mean monetary support. I very much appreciate your input.

My initial impression, after 163 reads and only 6 responses is that members are either eat up with apathy or they think me nuts. I'd welcome more discourse, even from the "cons".

 

[CoffeeMate]

Is it that there are those who are exempt from carry restrictions which is causing the harm? Or is it that the carry restrictions exist at all?


Does "equal protection" come into play at all?

 

[NTA]

discrimination is legal in lots of settings, actually in all areas where it is not illegal

in certain settings it is not legal based on race, gender, age, military service...

now violation of civil rights, that's a Federal crime
but mostly used to prosecute somebody who kills somebody and the state did not do their job in prosecution

 

[CountryGun]

Is it that there are those who are exempt from carry restrictions which is causing the harm? Or is it that the carry restrictions exist at all?

Does "equal protection" come into play at all?

I would think "equal protection under the law" also conveys equal entitlement, but I'm not a lawyer. You all knew that long ago.

I perceive it as an all or none situations. Restrictions either apply to everyone or no-one equally. Going back to the court clerk?............Someone will have to tell me why their lives are more valuable than yours. I'd simply like to see carry restrictions applied equally across both classes of citizens,..............those that seem worthy of protection, and those who are now deemed not worthy of protection. Did you ever meet a "chosen one" who fell under the constraints of the old "public gathering restrictions"? It's pure discrimination at the state level. Nothing less!

There exists a lower class of Georgia citizen that is not worthy of the right to protect him/her self. It's as simple as that. Most of us are in the lower class.

 

[gunsmoker]

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution apply here?
If so, are civilian gun owners (or GFL / GWL permit holders) a "suspect classification"?
Are we a minority group that have historically been discriminated against?
Unless civilian gun packers are considered a suspect classification and deserving of special protection,
the law will easily be upheld if there is "any rational basis" for treating cops, prosecutors, court clerks, coroners, etc. differently from regular civilians.

Now if carrying a gun in public, away from your home or vehicle, were considered a "fundamental right" then laws restricting that right would be subject to strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny means the law must be narrowly tailored to fit a compelling government interest, and the law cannot be overly intrusive or trample freedom excessively.

And let's consider the issue of "standing" too. If you are only one of millions of non-LEO, non-military, non-criminal justice personnel who are gun owners, it will be hard to convince the court that YOU have standing to sue in the first place.

 

[CountryGun]

discrimination is legal in lots of settings, actually in all areas where it is not illegal

in certain settings it is not legal based on race, gender, age, military service...

now violation of civil rights, that's a Federal crime
but mostly used to prosecute somebody who kills somebody and the state did not do their job in prosecution

Your comments and questions are appreciated!

Military? I do not want this to become an issue, or a focal point, but what makes a retired military service member different than a retired LEO? Both, while actively serving, are trained extensively, and are exempt under OCGA 16-11-130, yet the exemption for military is dropped upon retirement. Why isn't the retired LEO also dropped. It's only one example. I do not want to see retired military added to the exemptions. I want to see OCGA 16-11-130 either go away entirely, or be rewritten such that any holder of a GWL carry in the same areas as an LEO does now.

Can someone tell me why a court clerks, by virtue of their positions alone, are granted exemptions? They often train no more than anyone else on this board. Can anyone tell me why they are entitled to protection more than you or your spouse? Consider the exemptions; Not required to have a GWL; May carry anywhere but a courtroom or a jail,........Need I go on? Why are there two classes of citizens in this state, and why do we allow it?

If a court clerk is not required to have a GWL, then nobody should be required to have a GWL!

 

[CountryGun]

Does the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution apply here?
If so, are civilian gun owners (or GFL / GWL permit holders) a "suspect classification"?
Are we a minority group that have historically been discriminated against?
Unless civilian gun packers are considered a suspect classification and deserving of special protection,
the law will easily be upheld if there is "any rational basis" for treating cops, prosecutors, court clerks, coroners, etc. differently from regular civilians.

Now if carrying a gun in public, away from your home or vehicle, were considered a "fundamental right" then laws restricting that right would be subject to strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny means the law must be narrowly tailored to fit a compelling government interest, and the law cannot be overly intrusive or trample freedom excessively.

And let's consider the issue of "standing" too. If you are only one of millions of non-LEO, non-military, non-criminal justice personnel who are gun owners, it will be hard to convince the court that YOU have standing to sue in the first place.

I very much appreciate your input. Thank you, Sir!

What might the "rational basis" be for treating the life of a court clerk, or a coroner's life, with more dignity than my own or that of my wife? Can anyone think of one?

OCGA 16-11-130 is very narrowly tailored. What sets the "chosen ones" apart from other citizens in this state?

"Standing"? I know, I'd be very much alone. Hence, my question about a possible "class action suet". Discriminatory laws impact hundreds of thousands of citizens in Georgia. "Standing"? We have a lots of shoulders to stand on.

 

[CoffeeMate]

I would think "equal protection under the law" also conveys equal entitlement, but I'm not a lawyer. You all knew that long ago.

As in, the law protects a court clerk more than it protects someone who is not a court clerk?

Going back to the court clerk?............Someone will have to tell me why their lives are more valuable than yours.

I'm guessing the assumption is that a court clerk is more at risk of being forcefully coerced or retaliated against by a BG. It's the clerk who is making the "administrative wheels of the machine" turn -- "destroy that filing or I'll kill you" or "you filed the paperwork that put me in prison you SOB" kind of thing.

It's the coroner exemption which I find interesting. Is it because they're on a "peer level" with the sheriff, or in case someone gets upset with them over the handling of the dead body of a loved one... or is it because of the zombie potential?

I'd simply like to see carry restrictions applied equally across both classes of citizens,...

Something which I find objectionable -- and it seems I run into it repeatedly -- is that underlying assumption thing... that the state (using the term "state" in the general sense) as an entity always makes sure it's interests are protected and not subject to violation... but yet it seem always expected that the public -- individuals comprising the state -- must always give way and allow itself to be violated without question.

Isn't a state (general sense) formed in order to protect the interests and rights of it's individual members? So then how can the state (general sense), as an entity, put it's interests ahead of the public's?

IMHO, the 16-11-130 exemption is a "blatant hack" -- a cobbled together complication -- which was required in order to deal with "pissing all over" the purity of the State Constitution done by other bad law, specifically the carry restriction statutes. If those didn't exist then there'd by no need for 16-11-130.

Under "...shall not be infringed..." the question of whether or not a LEO could carry anywhere in the State wouldn't even exist. Likewise, neither would the question of whether or not court clerks and judges need to be afforded the same ability to protect themselves wherever they might be...

The question of whether or not a general member of the public should be afforded the ability to protect themselves wherever they might be has somehow been forgotten and swept aside and rendered irrelevant in the context of "interests of the state".

Indeed, even the concept of "afforded the ability" as applied to the general public is objectionable, (and even arguably offensive). Under both the State and Federal Constitutions, it isn't a matter of "affording" the ability -- it's a matter of protecting, preserving and upholding that ability and pre-existing right to self-defense, which is why these state (general sense) entities were even created to begin with.

16-11-130 is an example of starting with "...shall not be infringed..." and then somehow discarding it for "...shall be infringed except for these people (the state)..." Address the "underlying root problem" and then the "complicating hack" goes away.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[CoffeeMate]

Let me try saying it in a less verbose manner... Setting the argument in terms of "who should be exempt?" is a swindle. It's a manipulation, a shell game, and a con created to lull and distract the public to keep it from noticing that the vault of liberty has been robbed.

The question properly is, "who, if any, should be prohibited?"

"...shall not be infringed..." means "shall not be infringed".

 

[rankhornjp]

I think I'd have a great argument. I'm a counselor whose clientele is 98% probationers, they are court ordered to counseling. If they don't follow the rules and complete the program, they go back to jail. They blame this on me (or the company I work for). So, I'm basically at the same risk as a probation officer; they get an exemption, I don't. Clerk of Court gets an exemption, I don't. Judges get an exemption, I don't. Guess who spends the most time with these people.....ME. Guess whose fault it is they went to jail....MINE (in their eyes.) Guess who they get to come see again when they get out of jail......ME.

 

[CountryGun]

I think I'd have a great argument. I'm a counselor whose clientele is 98% probationers, they are court ordered to counseling. If they don't follow the rules and complete the program, they go back to jail. They blame this on me (or the company I work for). So, I'm basically at the same risk as a probation officer; they get an exemption, I don't. Clerk of Court gets an exemption, I don't. Judges get an exemption, I don't. Guess who spends the most time with these people.....ME. Guess whose fault it is they went to jail....MINE (in their eyes.) Guess who they get to come see again when they get out of jail......ME.

So we have two in the class? All kidding aside, I would think your case is a prime example. But, what about the woman who crosses paths with the rapist on probation, the father whose child is snatched by the probational pedophile, or the student mugged by the same robber that robbed him at knife-point only a few months ago?

Nobody has ever been able to answer the question as to why we have two classes of gun owners in this state. Those who enjoy the exemptions, are happy to keep their mouths shut ("dunkel" excepted.. :righton: ) . Those who obey the law, often the most vulnerable, accept the notion that they are lower class citizens. Why? Where did the fight go? We work, we raise families, and we pay taxes like anyone else. What measures of men are used to set the rights of one above another?

 

[CoffeeMate]

What measures of men are used to set the rights of one above another?

That's what I'm trying to say. It isn't the measure of men. It is the measure of the interests of that entity called the "state" (general sense).

I'm guessing rankhornjp is a private counselor who doesn't work for the state. Therefore there is no state interest, therefore no exemption. Likewise for the woman, father and student you've mentioned. Likewise for defense attorneys. Likewise for any member of society who is not part of that entity called "the state".

The whole question is turned on its head and as long as we argue it in terms of "who should be exempt", we buy into the fraud that's been committed against us by that very same entity.

It's like asking, "how much money should the government let us keep?" The question instead should be "how much of our money should we let the government confiscate?"

 

[politenessman]

What measures of men are used to set the rights of one above another?

That's what I'm trying to say. It isn't the measure of men. It is the measure of the interests of that entity called the "state" (general sense).

I'm guessing rankhornjp is a private counselor who doesn't work for the state. Therefore there is no state interest, therefore no exemption. Likewise for the woman, father and student you've mentioned. Likewise for defense attorneys. Likewise for any member of society who is not part of that entity called "the state".

The whole question is turned on its head and as long as we argue it in terms of "who should be exempt", we buy into the fraud that's been committed against us by that very same entity.

It's like asking, "how much money should the government let us keep?" The question instead should be "how much of our money should we let the government confiscate?"

QFT.
Wish I was that eloquent. Very well put sir.