Georgia Is a MAY Issue State!

Discussion in 'GWL News & Information' started by Malum Prohibitum, Feb 8, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
  2. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,288
    60
    48
    O.C.G.A. § 16-11-129
    License to carry pistol or revolver; temporary renewal permit


    " (a) Application for license or renewal license; term. The judge of the probate court of each county may, on application under oath and on payment of a fee of $15.00, issue a license or renewal license valid for a period of five years to any person whose domicile is in that county or who is on active duty with the United States armed forces and who is not a domiciliary of this state but who either resides in that county or on a military reservation located in whole or in part in that county at the time of such application, which license or renewal license shall authorize that person to carry any pistol or revolver in any county of this state notwithstanding any change in that person's county of residence or state of domicile................ "


    I thought GA was a SHALL issue state, but I guess I was wrong.
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    You have to look at (d)(4), the same place where it says that no report is required, where it also states, in the second sentence after the sentence stating that no report shall be required (and it does state that no report shall be required), "Not later than 60 days after the date of the application the judge of the probate court shall issue the applicant a license or renewal license to carry any pistol or revolver if no facts establishing ineligibility have been reported and if the judge determines the applicant has met all the qualifications, is of good moral character, and has complied with all the requirements contained in this Code section."

    Did I mention that this sub-subsection also states that no report shall be required?

    So (d) definitely states "shall issue" and even gives a timeline. For some reason, way back when the General Assembly changed Georgia from a "may issue" state to a "shall issue" state, they neglected to change this one word in (a).

    Apparently, the official position of the probate judges is that this process is a discretionary issue process.

    Oh, and the statute states that no report shall be required.
     
  4. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    Politics in the Judiciary?

    Betty Cason is the President of the Council, and is the defendant as well... or am I mixing cases? Even if I have mixed cases, isn't that a conflict of interest?

    Taler
     
  5. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    The form that I received from the Probate Court Administraion of Hall County, (Jan 31st 2007) which I took to the Detention Center where I was finger printed, stated in bold black and white print that the Probate Judge "SHALL ISSUE" in regards to my application for a GFL.

    The following are undisputed shall-issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    Also, please browse this URL: http://www.packing.org/state/report_shall_issue.php

    Here you will find that GA is a Shall Issue State, and you also will be able to see the complete list of all the Shall Issue States.

    In addition, please use this reference URL: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Cra ... issue.html and scroll down to Georgia, where you will find:

    Georgia's concealed weapon permit law before 1989 was somewhat ambiguous. While one part of the concealed weapon statute states, "The judge of the probate court of each county may...issue a license..." a later portion specifies:

    Not later than 60 days after the date of the application the judge of the probate court shall issue the applicant a license to carry any pistol or revolver if no facts establishing ineligibility have been reported and if the judge determines the applicant has met all the qualifications, is of good moral character, and has complied with all the requirements contained herein.

    But was the issuance of a permit discretionary or not? The use of "may" in one place suggested that it was discretionary. Yet the language "shall issue" seems non-discretionary. The Georgia Attorney General resolved the question in 1989, when he issued an opinion holding that the judge, "has no discretion to exercise, but must issue permit unless provided with information indicating disqualification of applicant."
     
  6. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    A cook, using fresh eggs, a proper frying pan, butter, and heat MAY make an omelette. The Cook SHALL have cooked an omelette when the eggs are beaten and cooked properly, without burning them.
     
  7. BergerBoy

    BergerBoy New Member

    80
    0
    0
    :shock:

    My views on the Georgia judicial system is growing more and more dismal everyday......

    What IS it with the Probate courts?!
     
  8. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    Maybe it's time to let the NRA know that they may be losing one of their shall-issue states. Maybe that will motivate them to acknowledge that Georgia has serious problems and help us! Otherwise, they can explain how they let it happen in a future issue of "First Freedom".
     
  9. glocked_n_loaded

    glocked_n_loaded New Member

    133
    0
    0
    It is "may issue" !!!

    MP.. as you know from my case last year..... if the probate judge doesn't want to issue a GFL..... it don't get issued. You may qualify under the state law rules.. but a probate judge can sit on your application forever and not issue a GFL and put nothing in writing that says you are not going to get it, thus leaving you in limbo-land indefinitely. there is no room in the statutes for discression on the judges behalf, except for on the basis of Moral Character, and that is an undefined term as applied to GFL's. Moral character is well defined if you want a license to be a beautician or cosmotologist, but not if you want a gun permit. LOL
     
  10. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,668
    7
    38
    Sorry, couldn't resist...


    [​IMG]
     
  11. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    Foshizzle has a very smart idea. MP~, what about it? How can this be done? Perhaps every member here should contact the NRA through a formal letter sent through you or Gunstar1 on the behalf of all of us???

    And Glocked_n_loaded's experience shows just how much wiggle room a Probate Judge has. :evil:
     
  12. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    Brief available?

    Is a copy of the brief available? Couldn't find it on the website.
     
  13. BergerBoy

    BergerBoy New Member

    80
    0
    0
    Glocked-n-loaded, what happened in your case?
     
  14. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    jgullock, shouldn't those kids have helmets on? You want them to accurately represent the probate judges right? :D
     
  15. viper32cm

    viper32cm New Member

    760
    0
    0
    Is there any legislative history on this topic? Any indication that the intent or purpose of the legislators in passing the law was to set up a shall issue regime would effectively negate this guys BS.

    But I suspect that fine folks at GCO already know this :)
     
  16. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    If there were any real indication that the intent or purpose of the legislators in passing the law was to set up a shall issue regime, I wouldn't be seeking a real answer. So much for your BS suggestion. :righton:
     
  17. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I have been waiting for a probate court judge to show how the Attorney General Unofficial Opinions can be used or ignored at their pleasure.

    Judge Cason, relies upon a 28 year old Unofficial opinion u78-45 (as in 1978) in court to help try to defend why she thinks she can take much longer than 60 days to issue a license.

    Now in front of a federal appellate court she also has the ability to blissfully ignore the fact that U89-21 (second question) says the opposite of what she is claiming.

    Is a legal opinion from 1989 less valid than one from 78?

    :bsflag: I am raising the flag because I think she is full of it.

    What a wonderful person to have as President of the Georgia Probate Judges Council.

    Oh, and if you wanted to read the opinions cited above they are all listed here http://www.georgiapacking.org/ga-ag/
     
  18. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    These are some things I did not know, Gunstar1. Thanks for clearing this up, although this knowledge is rather disappointing. :(

    Going to read the opinions in their entirety now. I appreciate the link. [/url]
     
  19. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    After reading u78-45 and U89-21, I am more perplexed as to how Judge Cason has come to the opinion that she and other Probate Judges may take much longer than the (60) days allowed by state law to issue GFL's.

    While a legal opinion from 1989 is certainly not less valid than one from 78, (especially when the second opinion contradicts completely the first) I suppose this fact means little, as it is Judge Cason's opinion, and she happens to be the President of the Georgia Probate Judges Council.

    I suppose also, at least for the time being, my part of the discussion concerning this topic is over. I'll take my blind fold and cigarette now. :shoot: