[GeorgiaGlocker]

When is the decision supposed to be rendered in this case?

 

[jrm]

The very last day upon which a decision can be made is July 16. This is the last day for decisions to be rendered in the January Term, which is the term in which this case was assigned. But, the court of appeals handles roughly 1,000 cases per term. Obviously, all of them can't be disposed of on the last day. A decision could come any day between now and July 16.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Get the torches and pitchforks ready.

 

[jrm]

Link: Superior Court Affirmed

The Court of Appeals' web site indicates that an opinion was issued today, affirming the decision of the superior court. Details of the opinion will be posted when they are available.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

In other words, folks, 60 days no mean 60 days . . .

 

[rajl]

WTF? Language seems very plain to me.

 

[Mafuta54]

In other words, folks, 60 days no mean 60 days . . .

:roll: :evil: :shakehead: :banghead: :bsflag: :help:

 

[ber950]

WTF? Language seems very plain to me.

Not really. I want to read the opinion first, but I can see several ways the appeals court came to this decision. The law is very poorly written and overly complex (like most of GA's gun laws). Also we will have to see which standard the appeals court applied. The old law or the new law.

This one may have to be won in the Legislature. Virginia solved this problem by making the application your permit after 45 days.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

WTF? Language seems very plain to me.

Not really. I want to read the opinion first, but I can see several ways the appeals court came to this decision. The law is very poorly written and overly complex (like most of GA's gun laws). Also we will have to see which standard the appeals court applied. The old law or the new law.

This one may have to be won in the Legislature. Virginia solved this problem by making the application your permit after 45 days.

I tend to agree.

 

[Gunstar1]

Well, now we have proof that the law needs to be changed.

 

[Gunstar1]

This means the probate courts are not violating the law. :roll:

 

[kkennett]

The law needs to be changed, notwithstanding this particular decision, whichever way. Let's reserve judgment until we can read the opinion.

 

[Foul]

It's according to what your definition if "is" is.
What a Clintonesque copout.

 

[Mike from Philly]

Judges protecting judges.

 

[foshizzle]

So, nothing has changed. It will be interesting to read their opinion. Maybe there is something good in there... let's hope!

 

[jrm]

Court of Appeals Says Report Always Required; Would be a 'Gross Dereliction' Not to Wait for It.

The text of the opinion should be available here soon.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

WTF? Language seems very plain to me.

Not really. I want to read the opinion first, but I can see several ways the appeals court came to this decision. The law is very poorly written and overly complex (like most of GA's gun laws). Also we will have to see which standard the appeals court applied. The old law or the new law.

After addressing the fact that the probate judge is not to issue to felons, the insane, and other not qualified individuals, the Court of Appeals turned its attention to the 60 day timeline. "The use of the term 'shall' means the probate court judge has no discretion to extend the 60-day timeline." You should think that would end the case. But the Court of Appeals instead declares a "quandary." It resolves this quandary by ignoring the language in the statute stating that no report is required and declaring that even the fact that no derogatory information is found requires a report!

The "appropriate report" must now be an "official, written evaluation of the candidate."

When no derogatory information is found on the applicant bearing on his or her eligibility to obtain a license or renewal license, a report shall not be required.

Some of you might recognize this as the Georgia Code. :wink:

That language has now been repealed as effectively as if the legislature did it! Here is what the Court of Appeals states.

The fact that the agency found no derogatory information on the applicant certainly bears on the applicant's eligibility; thus, it is a finding that must be "reported."
:?

The opinion is now posted on GCO.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

" . . . the 60 day period is implicitly extended by the statute itself when necessary to accomodate any delays that reasonably may be attributed to the investigative process."

 

[ber950]

After reading the ruling I must admit I am perplexed by the logic of the court. The only logic I see is the gun exception. Its about guns so we can't be too careful.
They gave no weight whatsoever to the 60 day clause. Frankly under this ruling I don't see a way to make a judge ever issue a license. That would make this state a defacto may issue state.

I think this is going to need a legislative fix. Without some penalty for going past the time limit this will always be a problem.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

After reading the ruling I must admit I am perplexed by the logic of the court. The only logic I see is the gun exception. Its about guns so we can't be too careful.

Bingo! :lol:

They gave no weight whatsoever to the 60 day clause.

Striaght out of the text of the opinion:
"The use of the term 'shall' means the probate court judge has no discretion to extend the 60-day timeline."

:rotfl: