GCO Sues Corps of Engineers Over Right to Carry On Corps Property June 13th, 2014

Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by tmoore912, Aug 15, 2014.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    5,440
    16
    38
    Since there doesn't appear to be an official thread for GeorgiaCarry.Org's lawsuit against The Army Corps of Engineers, I'd like to start one here. It would be nice to sticky this so it would be easy to find.

    GeorgiaCarry.Org filed suit on June 12th, 2014

    I realize there is another thread dealing with a particular question regarding the lawsuit and who it might benefit if we win. That thread is here: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=260289&highlight=Corps+Engineers
     
  2. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    5,440
    16
    38

  3. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    5,440
    16
    38
    GCO's argument in the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of a Preliminary Injunction is very persuasive so far that I have read. Naturally......I'm bias.
     
  4. bubbageek

    bubbageek New Member

    3,001
    0
    0
    You have to love reading the "Hammer's" court docs. At one point, he calls the Corps amazingly naive. Beautiful.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    '


    Thanks, tmoore912, great thread!
     
  6. GoDores

    GoDores Like a Boss

    2,911
    41
    48
    So much good stuff in that filing.

    "platitudinous mumbo-jumbo"

    :rotfl2:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    9,913
    155
    63
    "Plaintiffs therefore more for the Clerk to enter a default against each Defendant".

    "more" should be "move".

    Hopefully courts do not hold typos against you. I make mistakes like this all the time, and have to re-read and often edit more than once.
     
  8. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    5,440
    16
    38
    Surprise...........Surprise!

    Court Denies Injunction in Corps Case

    http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2014/08/19/court-denies-injunction-in-corps-case/

    Link to the Order: http://georgiacarry.com/national/army_coe/

     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Just for clarification, that is not a decision on the merits, it just means that the court is not willing to order the Corps not to enforce its regulation while the case is proceeding.

    The Idaho court decided that issue differently.

    Both cases are now moving forward.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Breakdown:

    (1) Army Corps of Engineer land, like all of lake Allatoona, is a "sensitive place," like a government building or a school.

    (2) The Army Corps of Engineers could simply exclude civilians from Lake Allatoona altogether, so they should be treated like a private property owner, and permitted to exclude firearms without offending the Second Amendment.

    (3) It is "irrational" (yes, that is a quote) to hold that because the Corps permits visitors to erect a tent that it must permit campers to keep a gun in the tent. Yes, Judge Murphy is actually calling the other judge's decision irrational.

    (4) You can choose to ensure no harm befalls you on Army Corps of Engineers land not by arming, but by simply not going there. Yes, the opinion says this. "by simply choosing to recreate elsewhere."

    (5) Other courts have upheld bans in universities and private areas of post office parking lots, so a ban on Corps land is ok, too.

    (6) There is a two step process in the Eleventh Circuit for analyzing Second Amendment claims. First, does the conduct fall within the Second Amendment? Second, whether the regulation at issue withstands the appropriate level of scrutiny. As to carrying on Corps of Engineers land, we do not even get to the first step, as the Judge Murphy declares that carrying a firearm at Lake Allatoona "falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment."

    (7) Nevertheless, "out of an abundance of caution," the court goes on and finds that intermediate scrutiny applies, which means that the regulation must be substantially related to an important government interest. This lowest possible level of scrutiny applies because this is not really an act of governance but managing Corps owned land.

    (8) The Court repeats that nobody "needs" to go to Corps land. It is voluntary to visit there.

    Maybe they can decide to arrest or fine people for discussing political issues or praying or reading the Bible, because, after all, nobody needs to go there, it is voluntary, and the Corps owns the land, so if you do not like it, you can recreate elsewhere. Accordingly, discussing political issues, praying, and reading the Bible are all conduct that fall outside the First Amendment, and, even if they did not, should be submitted to the lowest possible level of constitutional scrutiny.

    That reasoning works, right?
     
  11. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man

    5,440
    16
    38
  12. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    "sensitive place"

    But they allow hunting.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Yeah, well, you know . . .
     
  14. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    The judge pretty much ignored or tossed aside all our arguments.

    Because of a building located near Cartersville, it is OK to ban firearms on land in Acworth, Woodstock, and all the way to Canton.

    I liked the part where the judge said if he granted the injunction, the corps would have to spend lots of money to not enforce a regulation and the they would probably have to shut down Allatoona while they figured out how to allow firearms.
     
  15. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,459
    109
    63
    Now that's desperation.
     
  16. mountainpass

    mountainpass Under Scrutiny

    If I volunteer my time to drive out to Red Top Mtn and take down the signs will he change his mind?
     
  17. a_springfield

    a_springfield Well-Known Member

    3,071
    66
    48
    can I voluntarily not pay my taxes for the corp to operate "public" land
    If it is that sesitive of an are why is the georgia dnr allowed to carry and enforce state laws. Why is the corp not doing that
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2014
  18. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    109
    63
    reasonable

    If it's reasonable to deny the Second Amendment's protections in security sensitive areas, why does this apply to the many square miles of the lake and all the remote wooded lands and forests around it? And all those boat launch sites. Is somebody going to hold up the porta-potty?
    If somebody shoots the bulletin board and damages the Corps' map of the area, is that on par with somebody blowing up the dam or taking hostages in the dam water flow control room?
     
  19. GM404

    GM404 Well-Known Member

    2,728
    42
    48
    Seriously? This guy is an idiot. I am afraid of the future of this country. It used to be that the best reasoning came from the courts...they were the last ditch effort to make sure the laws and constitution was upheld. Now...well, personal opinion rules the land and that scares the living hell out of me.

    And holy crap...the judge is 87 years old?!? Wow...
     
  20. alnen

    alnen Active Member

    1,106
    10
    38