Excellent Article - "The Right to Resist and the Vindication of Julius Holmes"

2068 Views 18 Replies 7 Participants Last post by 68908, Jul 29, 2016

jgullock

Discussion Starter · Jul 26, 2016

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-right-to-resist-and-vindication-of.html

Julius Holmes was in his Macon, Georgia apartment cooking dinner when Officer Rogers arrived to arrest him.

"I'll be damned if you will," Holmes hissed, making a furtive move toward a handgun he had placed on a nearby bed.

GA Court of Appeals - "A policeman under these circumstances cannot be allowed to dispense with a warrant when making or attempting an arrest any more than other officers of the law," continued the appellate court's ruling. When the policemen went into the defendant's house to arrest him without a warrant, they were trespassers in a double sense - trespassing upon the sacred right of personal liberty, and trespassers upon the right of domicile. The defendant had a legal right to resist both trespasses, and to use in resistance as much force as necessary to make that resistance effective."

Save

1 - 2 of 19 Posts

100 years ago, the Supreme Court of Ga said that a ranch hand or farm worker can carry on the rural land they work as their "place of business." WITHOUT ANY CARRY PERMIT.

I am not confident that a court would follow that reasoning to rule that a pimply-faced 18 year old burger flipper can pack a loaded concealed pistol in his polyester uniform at McDorkle's in the City of Atlanta, without his employer's knowledge or permission.

Bob Dylan said "the times they are a-changin' " and they may have changed enough to erode the value of 100+ year old caselaw.

Save

gunsmoker

· #18 · Jul 29, 2016

Malum Prohibitum said:
Why not? The law still says "place of business," doesn't it?

O.C.G.A. Â§ 16-11-126

"Any person [including pimply faced 18 year olds] who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun [which includes pimply faced 18 year olds] . . . may have or carry on his . . . person a weapon . . . inside his . . . place of business [which includes McDonalds] without a valid weapons carry license."

I don't know how a modern court might distinguish a future case from those ranch hand carry cases, but I'm sure it could be done. We've all seen some really convoluted thinking and lack of logic from the appellate courts of Georgia, haven't we? Or the federal courts, too-- like how church carry would force churches to deal with armed unwelcome visitors in their churches, and giving them the choice to opt-in would leave them no control over their own church security.

Save

1 - 2 of 19 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month