The Georgia law is contrary.... I would ask her to read OCG 16-11-129. Can these people not read??? :screwy:kkennett said:2) They no longer issue temporary renewal permits. Says it 'came down from the Brady bill.' She does also indicate that they would gladly read and absorb any material one may have to the contrary if mailed to them. Very friendly. [-X
October 10, 2006
Dear Judge McVay:
I recently wrote your office regarding your refusal to issue temporary Georgia Firearms Licenses as proscribed by OCGA 16-11-129(i). I was pleasantly surprised that you took the time to call me personally and discuss the matter.
I was recently made aware of a motion filed against the Probate Judge of Henry County, Kelley S. Powell, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that dealt with this very matter and one other, equally important issue (Civil Action No: 1:06-CV-2382-BBM). The plaintiff in the filing was denied the issuance of a temporary license and the court failed to even process his application for a renewal GFL upon the applicantâ€™s refusal to provide his Social Security Number and employment information. I called your office today and was informed that you require the SSN and employment information to process GFL applications in Cherokee County as well.
The short version of the story is that the plaintiff believes that the Henry County court violated OCGA 16-11-129(i) by refusing to issue him a temporary GFL and 16-11-129(a) by requiring disclosure of employment information (â€œnon-pertinent or irrelevantâ€ data). The plaintiff also believes that the court violated Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 by requiring the disclosure of his SSN.
After the motions for a temporary restraining order were filed, the Henry County Court reversed its previous position and did both process the plaintiffâ€™s application without his SSN or employment info and issue him a temporary GFL.
I have enclosed copies of complaint, the Brief in Support of Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and the letter from the Henry County Attorney agreeing to redact the SSN and issue a temporary license. I imagine your office has faster and more complete access to all the court documents of this case, but I found them online at: http://www.georgiapacking.org/puckett/
Given your position that there is no legal way that a court can issue a temporary license and that a SSN and employment info are required to properly process an application, I was wondering if the recent events involving the Henry County Probate Court would influence your office to begin following both State and Federal laws regarding the issuance of firearms licenses.
Thank you for your time.
A similar motion was filed earlier in the same court against the Probate Judge of Carroll County, Betty B. Cason (1:06-CV-01586-CAP). The court did find for the defendant and did issue a temporary restraining order ordering the Carroll County judge to issue a temporary license and to process the application without a SSN. The GA Department of Public Safety (also a defendant in the case) subsequently revised the GFL application, noting the optional nature of the SSN and employment information. I have enclosed a copy of the courtâ€™s order. The plaintiffâ€™s request for injunctive relief was then judged moot and dismissed as the DPSâ€™s application and policy have been revised. I found the relevant documents online at: http://www.georgiapacking.org/camp/
It is also worth noting that at least two counties, Lee and Dougherty, issue temporary licenses as a matter of standard procedure. Given your position that there is no legal way that a court can issue a temporary license and that a SSN and employment info are required to properly process an application, I was wondering if the recent events involving the Henry & Carroll County Probate Courts and Georgia DPS would influence your office to begin following both State and Federal laws regarding the issuance of firearms licenses.
10-4, revising againjrm said:Mzmtg,
A couple corrections:
1. The court found for the plaintiff in issuing the restraining order (not the defendant).
2. The court really found mootness based on the fact that it had issued the restraining order, not on the fact that DPS changed its form.