Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok I live in Fulton county, and I am about to apply for my GWL. But because of the size I Fulton county, the wait to actually receive the license is about 60 days. If I were to go to a smaller county to apply and tell them that I am homeless (which I am not) would they allow me to apply in that county? My drivers license says Fulton county also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
If you're "homeless", where will they mail your license?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Also, how would you substantiate your claim of being a resident of the county?
My sincerity? Overwhelming charm? A C-note perhaps? :righton:
 

·
Weapons Law Booklet
Joined
·
1,056 Posts
The GWL application contains a 'sworn' oath from you that the information you are submitting to this government agency is true.
If you lie on it, you'l be committing two felonies.
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (false statements to a government agency)
and O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (false swearing, outside of court)
Each is felony that carries up to a 5-year prison term.
As you should know, any felony carries an automatic loss of all gun rights, for both federal and state legal systems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
Just deal with it. Call EVERY day and ask about progress. Remind them when they are out of compliance with the law. File Open Records Act requests regarding your application. After a while, they will pull yours out and send it to you just to shut you up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
If we went back to the # of counties GA had in 1835, Fulton would not exist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The GWL application contains a 'sworn' oath from you that the information you are submitting to this government agency is true.
If you lie on it, you'l be committing two felonies.
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (false statements to a government agency)
and O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (false swearing, outside of court)
Each is felony that carries up to a 5-year prison term.
As you should know, any felony carries an automatic loss of all gun rights, for both federal and state legal systems.
I definetly didn't know that
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
The GWL application contains a 'sworn' oath from you that the information you are submitting to this government agency is true.
If you lie on it, you'l be committing two felonies.
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (false statements to a government agency)
and O.C.G.A. 16-10-20 (false swearing, outside of court)
Each is felony that carries up to a 5-year prison term.
As you should know, any felony carries an automatic loss of all gun rights, for both federal and state legal systems.
And, wouldn't the license itself be invalid? Meaning that carrying would also be a crime?
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
Sure, but a permit issued in 1835 will have expired in 1840, which doesn't help him in 2016. I also do not believe we had a permitting system in place back then either.
The 1840s, when a court had PRINCIPLES.

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."
http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/nunnvstate.htm
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Rugerer said:
The 1840s, when a court had PRINCIPLES.
...paging Gov. Deal... now paging Gov. Deal...

The right has no limits, short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consists of nothing else but the liberty. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens bearing weapons.
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
If we were talking cell phones instead of self-defense, would anyone not think there were at least First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments issues if it were a crime to have them at certain times or in certain places, or they were arbitrarily confiscated, or you were arrested, charged, fined, etc for accidentally having one in your possession?

And cell phones aren't even specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Arms are.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
That case said that there was no right to carry "secretly," or concealed, as we would call it today, but only openly. I just wanted to make sure you did not miss the point of that case.

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.
So the principle was that concealed carry may be banned entirely without offending the constitution.

Note also that the Justices were remarking upon two things, natural rights and constitutional rights (see the first sentence quoted). All emphases by italics are quoted as they are in the original.
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
That case said that there was no right to carry "secretly," or concealed, as we would call it today, but only openly. I just wanted to make sure you did not miss the point of that case.

So the principle was that concealed carry may be banned entirely without offending the constitution.

Note also that the Justices were remarking upon two things, natural rights and constitutional rights (see the first sentence quoted). All emphases by italics are quoted as they are in the original.
Yes. But, I still see it as a principled argument based on founding ideas, not like today's judges redefining words and splitting hairs and inventing "arguable probable cause" phrases because "gun!"
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top