Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 511 Posts

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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

GCO filed a lawsuit late Thursday, June 12, against the Army Corps of Engineers for its refusal to allow GWL holders to carry on Corps property. The complaint and any subsequent filings can be found here: http://georgiacarry.com/national/army_coe/
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
 

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,001 Posts
You have to love reading the "Hammer's" court docs. At one point, he calls the Corps amazingly naive. Beautiful.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
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
'

Thanks, tmoore912, great thread!
 

·
Like a Boss
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
So much good stuff in that filing.

It is difficult to take Defendants seriously on their claim that their lands are vital national infrastructure, so sensitive that firearms cannot possibly be allowed, lest they upset the delicate balance of public safety, except of course for people roaming those same lands with all manner of firearms, hunting all manner of game.
Defendants are not able to come up with even applicable persuasive authority for this proposition.
Against this backdrop, Defendants claim to have struck a “delicate balance†with their regulation so as “to ensure the safety of visitors to the lands it manages….†This is just platitudinous mumbo-jumbo.
The lack of correlation, let alone logic, is astonishing.
In other words, because Defendants have managed to violate Plaintiffs’ rights in the past, they should be permitted to continue to do so ad infinitum. One would hope for better from one’s own government.
Defendants (amazingly naively) seem to believe that their regulation is protecting dams, levees, and hydroelectric facilities. Somehow a misdemeanor prohibition against carrying firearms on Corps properties is the bulwark against terrorist attacks resulting in felonious destruction of our infrastructure. It is seriously disconcerting that Defendants believe this to be true, but Plaintiffs are confident the Court will give such beliefs the credence they deserve.
"platitudinous mumbo-jumbo"

:rotfl2:

 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,901 Posts
"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.
 

·
Just a Man
Joined
·
6,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
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/

In GCO's case against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' ban on carrying firearms on their property, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Harold Murphy presiding, has denied GCO's motion for a preliminary injunction....................................
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: _45_

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
"sensitive place"

But they allow hunting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,458 Posts
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.
Now that's desperation.
 

·
Under Scrutiny
Joined
·
19,386 Posts
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.
If I volunteer my time to drive out to Red Top Mtn and take down the signs will he change his mind?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,405 Posts
(8) The Court repeats that nobody "needs" to go to Corps land. It is voluntary to visit there.
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
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,517 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,033 Posts
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...
 
1 - 20 of 511 Posts
Top