Today's GA Supreme Court dodge

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by kkennett, Nov 20, 2006.

  1. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Published today in Brewer v. State of GA by the GA Sup Ct http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s06a1104.pdf , the court artfully dodges deciding whether firearms seizure subsequent to a drug arrest violates the US 2A and the GA Const.'s assurances. Here is the relevant text:

    2. We find no merit in appellant's argument that OCGA § 16-13-49 (n) violates his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As this Court has long recognized, the construction given the Federal constitution by the United States Supreme Court is conclusive, Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 1, 8-9 (72 SE 271) (1911), and under controlling opinions from that Court, the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" imposes a limitation on only Federal, not state, legislative efforts. Id. at 9. See Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (6 SC 580, 29 LE 615) (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (23 LE 588) (1875). See also Bach v. Pataki, 408 F3d 75, 84 (2nd Cir. 2005). Appellant's argument under the State Constitution was not raised and ruled on below and thus we do not address it. See generally Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157 (1) (91 SE2d 16) (1956) (court will not pass upon constitutionality of statute not directly and properly made below and distinctly passed on by trial court).


    So they basically say, using a case from 1911, that the Sup Ct. has not used the 14th A to apply the 2A to the states, and that the GA Const. argument was not properly made below. While perhaps technically correct, this is one serious dodge. What a bunch of pansies! I hope there's a Sup Ct cert petition asking the question, does the 14th apply the 2nd to the states? This is not a particularly good test case, however, as it involves drugs.
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Argh! Justice Hunstein cited Strickland! See what I mean, Mike?
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    They also cite U.S. v. Cruikshank as authority for the proposition that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and not the states. Want to know a little more about that case?

    Man, how intellectually dishonest can one get? Everybody on this site needs to READ United States v. Cruikshank so that they can combat this horse manure whenever it comes up! It is a case about nullifying the Fourteenth Amendment so that whites can oppress blacks!

    US v. Cruikshank was NOT, strictly speaking, a Second Amendment case. Why, then, is it cited by the anti-gunner judges every time the Second Amendment is proposed in litigation as a bar to state laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms?

    Because they are dishonest. :sly:

    US v. Cruikshank held that NO constitutional rights of black citizens being infringed by the states are subject to review by the federal courts.

    That is what the judges are upholding!



    A little history. The Colifax massacre was the slaughter of over one hundred black Americans by a white mob. The Supreme Court held that the federal legislation under which the white murderers were indicted was faulty, because Congress could not enforce the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The Court specifically pointed to the FIRST Amendment as well as the Second (wonder why they never mention that?).


    How anyone could cite this garbage of a case in this day and age is beyond me.

    This case stands for the proposition that a state may take away the free speech, religous, and other first amendment rights of its black citizens, in addition to the right to bear arms, and there is nothing Congress can do about it, even if the "deprivation of rights" in question is the massacre of scores of free citizens!

    Remember this next time you see an anti reference to this case! Recognize the reality of what it is that is being cited.

    :soapbox:

    Here is a decent summary of it for those not inclined to read the whole case.
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Ok, so its just me, but maybe this is what you get on a court where only one justice was appointed by a Republican Governor in our lifetimes.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Justice Hunstein, the author of this opinion, won re-election last month in a landslide. :roll:

    It just gets under my skin that any court would cite to a case about a massacre of citizens for the proposition that a federal constitutional right may be invaded with impunity by state governments. It is offensive!

    However, this is probably the most frequently cited case on the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
     
  6. BergerBoy

    BergerBoy New Member

    80
    0
    0
    Wow, I'm at a loss of words! I've seen that court case cited before, but didn't fully grasp its importance.
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    But now you'll never forget it! :D
     
  8. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    That truly is offensive! Thanks for the history lesson.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Keep your fingers crossed! If Parker is upheld by the United States Supreme Court, it will be reversal time for Brewer v. Georgia!
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    That is, um, once a 14th Amendment incorporation case works its way through the system . . .
     
  11. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Yes, incorporation is a taller order, and less sure to succeed.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    I think it is likely to succeed and almost assured if the Heller case is successful at the Supreme Court.
     
  13. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Agreed.
     
  14. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    For a minute I thought I was in good ol' OB Zimmer's class back in college. MP - my old CJ teacher went on a rant one day about that case in about the same way that you just did. He felt that if a third of the voting population knew just what case was being thrown around that they'd all be stripped from the bench under protest.

    I'll never forget that one.
     
  15. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    Speaking of voting populations and the Justice's re-election... I can accept the election of local judges, but the fact the Georgia Supreme Court justices are elected just completely boggles my mind. :bigshock:

    What does my vote mean when it's up against an estimated 9,363,341 morons whose main source of news is Entertainment Tonight??

    :banghead:
     
  16. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    I think this may be the first time I am utterly speechless.
     
  17. merlock

    merlock New Member

    2,513
    0
    0
    +1

    Sad, but true. :shakehead:
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    A little more on Cruikshank. The court later addresses the 14th Amendment, but notes that it restrains only state action, not private deprivations of constitutional rights.

    The murdering mob did not consist of state actors.
     
  19. MrMorden

    MrMorden New Member

    2,598
    0
    0
    The "MrMorden gets the **** out of Georgia" countdown timer just got one tick closer to 0.
     
  20. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Unfortunately you're not that far from how I feel.