Made the Front Page

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Dec 11, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    249
    63
    Thankfully, they spared me the awful picture that made its way onto the cover page of the print version . . . I knew I caught a flash bulb while speaking . . .

    Link to Story

    The headline was a little disturbing, but the article is actually very good, and it is obvious the reporter did her homework.
     
  2. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Nice job there MP.

    I agree with your comment concerning the headline. The article itself was well written and reports what happened without any editorial comment, both of which are rather unusual.

    It appears you did an excellent job presenting your information (as well you should; Mister Lawyer-Guy!) and the commissioners sound fairly reasonable. Was that your impression of them?

    Thanks for your efforts.


    But, inquiring minds do want to see that picture ! ! !
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    249
    63
    Is this the beginning of a public relations battle?


    If so, some concise, articulate, and well reasoned letters to the editor might help?

    Letters to the Editor should be 300 words or less and include your name, address and daytime phone number for verification. Letters over 300 words are subject to editing. Only signed letters will be considered for publication. We will print your name and hometown only. Send your letter to editor@newnan.com or via snail mail to: Letters to the Editor, The Times-Herald, P.O. Box 1052, Newnan, GA 30264. You may also drop it off at our offices from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday or fax it to us at 770 253-2538.

    :D
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Ok, I know the county attorney's opinion on the law is not something I would rely on, (http://georgiacarry.org/cms/2006/12/04/gco-to-speak-to-coweta-county-commissioners/), but that article brings up a few questions...

    Does the county attorney not know the difference between state preemption (where the county/city cannot make a law governing the issue, only the state can) and constitutional protection (neither the county/city nor the state can make a law)? I know she said that in the letter, but was the statement that the regulation was constitutional repeated at the meeting?

    I am pretty sure MP would have talked about the definition of public place after such a comment by the county attorney, Did the reporter miss that?

    Last, do we know when the next meeting on the issue might be?
     
  5. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
  6. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,067
    249
    63
    Nope.

    Nope, but I did discuss public gathering further. This went on for 20 or 30 minutes, so not everything could get into the paper. It went something like, "The public gathering law certainly would bar carrying in any publicly owned buildings at county recreational facilities, as well as athletic or sporting events, like little league games, which are both places specifically listed in the public gathering statute. In addition, because the statute says 'shall include but shall not be limited to,' the Court of Appeals has ruled that the phrase 'public gathering' also includes situations when people are gathered or will be gathered for a particular function." That is from State v. Burns. I then gave the example of a Fourth of July fireworks show and mentioned that there was, in fact a seminal case holding that a public Fourth of July BBQ was a public gathering. I left out the racist overtones in that case. This seemed to satisfy the concerns of most of the commissioners.

    I then added that not every place and time in a park or recreational facility is a public gathering, so they should not make the mistake of thinking their ordinance is co-extensive with the state public gathering law.

    And, of course, I added that they cannot have an ordinance even if it IS the same as the state public gathering law, which seems to be a sticking point. To emphasize the point, and in response to a question from a commissioner as to whether there was a court case on pre-emption, I quoted the following: “The practical effect of the preemption doctrine is to preclude all other local or special laws on the same subject.†Sturm Ruger Co. v. City of Atlanta, 253 Ga. App. 713, 718, 560 S.E.2d 525, 530 (2002) (emphasis added).


    Not yet. The commission has ordered the county attorney to reevaluate her position, and she has said that she will review the materials I provided (which included the preemption statute and the AG opinon and citations to the Sturm Ruger case). I think she is entitled to a fair amount of time to reevaluate her position, which is a difficult task once one has already committed an erroneous position to writing and reasserted most of it in a commission meeting and then seen those reasserted opinions appear in newsprint.

    Thanks, Rammstein!
     
  7. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    Fantastic way to represent our 2nd amendment interests. Looked like a decent article with good information although I agree that the title is inappropriate. Typical for newspapers though. I'm not going to get into that issue.

    Thanks for taking the time out to speak to them! Incremental victories lead to big results...
     
  8. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
  9. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    Sic 'em, MP. Good on ya!!