Dawson County court email

Discussion in 'Ga. County Licensing Information' started by Sgt.B, Dec 22, 2006.

  1. Sgt.B

    Sgt.B New Member

    108
    0
    0
    This is the email from Dawson County Probate to my state Senator.

    Dear Senator Pearson,

    Since changes in the law as of July 1, 2006 regarding firearms license
    all RENEWAL APPLICANTS must undergo a complete background check the same as
    1st time applicants.
    The code section that Mr. Blackstock referred to in his letter states
    that the judge of the probate court shall issue the applicant a license not
    later that 60 days after the date of the application. However the code
    requires the court to obtain the appropriate criminal history report before
    issuing the permit. It is my understanding of the law that if the court has
    not received the criminal history report back from GBI/FBI then we do not
    have the information we need to comply with the law. The court cannot be
    compelled to issue the permit unless we know the person is qualified to be
    issued the license. As for the 60 days there is an unofficial opinion of
    the attorney general
    PLEASE SEE...................
    1978 Ga. op. Atty. Gen. 249,
    Ga. op. Atty. Gen. No. U78-45,
    1978 WL 17323 (Ga. A.G.)

    Office of the Attorney General
    State of Georgia

    Unofficial opinion No. U78-45

    Please note that since the changes in July of 2006 it is taking about three
    to four months to get our reports back from the GBI/FBI.

    There has been some talk of issuing a temporary license until the reports
    are returned to the judge of the probate court. It seems clear to me from
    the preamble of the new legislation that the intention of the Georgia
    Legislature was to eliminate temporary licenses. Representatives of the FBI
    and the ATF have been clear with us that they understood the temporary
    license provisions of our code had been repealed by that act, and that based
    on that understanding, they agreed to let our licenses once again serve as
    an alternative to a NICS check when someone buys a handgun.
    Since our Georgia statutes do specifically require that fingerprint
    based criminal history checks be made for both license applications and
    license renewals, the feds have urged us to read everything together in a
    way which comports with federal law and that we not issue any kind of
    renewal until those checks are completed, despite the legislature's
    oversight of having left in the temporary renewal provisions.
    Although I regret any inconvenience this may be causing to our permit
    holders. I must abide by the law and obtain the necessary and appropriate
    criminal history report before issuing a firearms license.
    I hope we are able to make some clarifications in the next legislative
    session.
    If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me
    anytime.

    Sincerely,

    Jennifer Burt
    Judge of the Probate Court
    Dawson County, Georgia


    I am taking 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards. (99 days and counting) :cry:
     
  2. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    I think that email is particularly insightful regarding the current state of affairs with the probate courts. As I understand that, the ATF says, "We'd like for the law to say the following ..., and despite the fact that it doesn't we'll demand that it say that anyway." Well, I'm sorry, but that just isn't the way it works in a land of laws.
     

  3. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Notwithstanding that the code section also goes on to address the 'no negative information returned' scenario, which our friendly probate judge does not discuss.
     
  4. mzmtg

    mzmtg Active Member

    3,119
    0
    36
    "Some talk of temporary licenses"

    ?????????????????

    That judge needs to get her head out of her ass.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Well, it was not repealed, Judge Burt. The law clearly states that you MUST issue the license at the time of application, Judge Burt. So quit pretending that the law is something it is not, Judge Burt. There is not a single thing in the "preamble" mentioning temporary licenses, so quit pretending there is.

    The feds? Who determines state law, the General Assembly or "the feds" (whoever that is - some low level flunky that attends training sessions sponsored by the Georgia Council of Probate Court Judges).



    "I must abide by the law?" Really, Judge Burt? Well here is "the law" relating to issuing temporary licenses:

    Unless the judge of the probate court knows or is made aware of any fact which would make the applicant ineligible for a five-year renewal license, the judge shall at the time of application issue a temporary renewal license to the applicant.

    See O.C.G.A. 16-11-129(i)(2). It is not too tough to read, is it?

    Why is it that every single court challenge to the failure to issue a temporary license has resulted in, what, . . . let's see . . . what did they result in again? Hmmm . . . what was it? :-k I resounding victory for the probate court's refusal to follow the language of 129(i)? A victory for some federal bureaucrat's mistaken interpretation of a very clear Georgia statute? Hmmm . . . no, that's not it . . . what was it?

    OH! Yeah, now I remember - in EVERY case so far the recalcitrant probate court has immediately caved and issued the license before the case could reach the first hearing.

    :lol:

    Something tells me that Judge Burt, the "feds," and the other probate judges do not really believe what they are saying. Rather, they are simply holding the line on their deliberately ignorant position, obstinately refusing to follow the law until . . . until . . . until what? Well, look at the second to last sentence in the original letter from Judge Jennifer Burt, which tells us. The probate judges want to "change" the law in the 2007 session of the General Assembly. Good luck, we'll be watching.

    And what better way to change it then to simply pretend like it is what you want now, even without a change?
     
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    I have taken the liberty of re-writing the letter:

    :lol:

     
  7. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Actually the preamble is the only place the temporary permit was mentioned, just not the way the judge seems to think.

    Which means that either it is just referencing what 129 covers (license to carry and temps) or it means that NICS should be used to check to for any reason a temp permit should not be issued.

    AND..
    Seems to be either referring to 129 and what it contains or it means that since "All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed." means (i) should have been deleted, though the probate courts seem to be the only people that believe that.
     
  8. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    If the probate courts are correct, that brings up another question...
    If all we can do is specifically alter the text or remove parts of it such as subsection (i)'s temporary renewal, what does that mean for subsection (e)?

    Revocation does not list the federal laws that would disqualify for a new or renewal permit, does that mean revocations cannot be issued for violations of federal firearms law not already listed?

    Also the same section says of damaged licenses:
    Again the judge is issueing a license without the background check as said in the pre-amble, so does that mean no more replacements for damaged licenses? You can only renew them now?
     
  9. Sgt.B

    Sgt.B New Member

    108
    0
    0
    state representative called

    I thought some of you would like to know my state rep has a GFL. He called me today to discuss my firearms license application and the delay with probate/ GBI or whatever the reason is that I am over 100 days with no license. Anyway, he says he had no problems renewing his GFL. :lol:
    I bet he didn't. Wish I could say the same.
    He said he would look into it and get back with me ASAP. Sounded like he might be able to help me with this mess. I think I have complained enough, they are probably ready for me to be quiet now, - PLEASE-.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    (1) Did you actually request a temporary license when you applied?

    (2) Is your current license now expired so that you are without a license and the privileges it confers?

    Just for your own consideration, I want to point out that since you applied in September, the new provision relating to instant NICS checks (O.C.G.A. 16-11-129(d)(2), for reference) was already mandatory. Because this is a renewal application, they previously checked your fingerprints about five years ago.

    As a result, there is no concern over your identity that justifies waiting for the fingerprints, because you already have your current license. There is also no concern over your criminal background, because of the instant NICS check.

    I am not saying the local law enforcement agency should not check the fingerprint based records and report back to the probate court, just as the statute says, but I am saying that with the NICS check performed as the statute requires and nothing derogatory reported within 50 days, she ought to issue the renewal license.

    It also appears from her letter that she is herself checking the fingerprint based records and getting a report directly from the FBI, rather than having the local law enforcement agency do it and report back if anything derogatory is found. That is not what the law says to do! Nevertheless, I think it is what the probate courts are doing.

    (3) Are you a member of GCO?

    (4) Now that you know your ORI number, did you follow up with the GBI, as some others have done, to see when the locals shipped off your fingerprints and what the status is of the GBI's review?
     
  11. Sgt.B

    Sgt.B New Member

    108
    0
    0
    Dawson County

    Malum Prohibitum
    (1) Yes- even took a printed copy of 16-11-129 to the court with me. Just like the home page here says to do.
    (2) Yes- 11/20/06. This was a renewal. I have had a GFL for 10 years.
    (3) No- But I will send membership application to GCO ASAP. My eyes have been opened. Thanks for the link.
    ( 4) Yes- Emailed GCIC and a nice lady called me back the next day. Talked to her for about 20 min. She could not find any info about me,no request for a criminal history check, no investigation at the time and no investigation had been done on me or report sent. This was 2 weeks ago.

    I think my application is still sitting on the judges desk collecting dust :cry:
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Re: Dawson County


    :shock:
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Re: Dawson County

    Is this still the case?
     
  14. Sgt.B

    Sgt.B New Member

    108
    0
    0
    Update- 4 months and 4 days to beg the state of Georgia,of which I am a sovereign citizen,for permission to exercise my God given,unalienable,
    constitutionaly protected right to keep and bear arms.
    The GBI has finnished my back ground investigation. I should have my license very soon. Until then....


    I am armed with or without permission.

    PATICK HENRY ....
     
  15. Sgt.B

    Sgt.B New Member

    108
    0
    0
    At last!! I picked up my GFL from the probate court today just before they closed for the day. Still, I am mad about the whole process and am letting my senator and rep know what I think of our firearms laws.
    A few good things about my experience,

    1- I have learned a lot about our laws
    2-sent in membership application to GCO
    3-let the ones who make my laws know who I am
    4-motivated to make our laws better
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    Did you ever get straight when your information was sent to GCIC and when they sent it out (in other words, exactly how much of that delay was attributable to the GBI, who did not even have your fingerprints yet when you called?).
     
  17. Sgt.B

    Sgt.B New Member

    108
    0
    0
    MP, according to the info I have and my time line talking to GCIC it took 17 days from the time GCIC began the backgroung check until the court
    called me to pick it up. I am certain the probate judge is the reason for my 4 month+ wait.
     
  18. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Is there no way to keep accountability of documents?

    Like tracking the progression and time of documents. ie:
    turned docs into P Judge - May 1
    fingerprints sent to FBI/GBI/GCIC - May 15
    documents sent back to P judge - May 16
    et cetera

    Do they not keep track, and if they do shouldn't we be able to get that through a FOIA?

    I'm sure this has been thought of before, I just wanted to ask.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    The GCIC will tell you. That is the reason we have an ORI number page here. When SgtB called the first time, after being told by the probate court about this ostensible delay at GCIC, the GCIC was very clear that they had not even received his fingerprints yet!

    That is very judgmental of you. I think you should give the probate court the benefit of the doubt. I mean, they already told you it was not their fault, but the delays at GCIC. Why are you being so judgmental?
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63