Outlander Systems
06-11-15, 09:26
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/georgia-gun-owners-rights-not-destroyed-by-corps-b/nmZTy/
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/home/id=1202728860877/Judges-Gun-Rights-Groups-Home-Run-Swing-Strikes-Out?mcode=1202617074542&curindex=0&slreturn=20150511100711
Basically, the court ruled that the 2nd Ammendment does not apply to Corps of Engineers Managed Properties.
So, for the Orwellian Doublespeak from the Court:
"The government's stated and plainly legitimate objective is promoting public safety on Corps property," although he acknowledged, "We lack much of the basic information we would need to assess the risks found at Allatoona Lake. … We also have no evidence about the dangers currently facing Allatoona visitors, including the frequency and nature of crimes committed or of altercations amongst visitors."
Read more: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202728860877/Judges-Gun-Rights-Groups-Home-Run-Swing-Strikes-Out#ixzz3clMJxLC3
Money quote:
The firearm regulation was a “reasonable fit to the Corps’ interests by contributing to visitor safety and protecting infrastructure projects — particularly in light of the Corps’ limited ability to police its own property,” the court ruled in August.
Am I the only one who reads this as, "We can't protect you, and neither can you?"
While it can be argued that the Corps can set its own policies regarding its facilities, this is an interesting case in that:
Georgia is the "Guns Everywhere" :rolleyes: state.
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173
Legislative findings; preemption of local regulation and lawsuits; exceptions
(a) (1) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms and other weapons is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern.
(2) The General Assembly further declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, and sale of firearms and ammunition and other weapons to the public is not unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se.
(b) (1) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, no county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance or resolution, nor any agency, board, department, commission, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation shall regulate in any manner:
(A) Gun shows;
(B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons;
(C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or
(D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.
Basically, no City, County, Community, etc. can bar carrying of weapons. The state has the sole authority to determine the regulatory nature of weapons possession. It is a blanket statement, preventing anyone from trying to preempt the state's rulings regarding the "Guns Everywhere" :rolleyes: law.
The interesting thing is that, carry is lawful in the National Parks.
Q. Can I have a firearm in every park after February 22, 2010?
A. If you can legally possess a firearm outside of a national park, you can possess it in that park on and after February 22, 2010. It is up to visitors to understand the requirements of federal law and the laws of the states/localities they live in or are travelling to (or through). Park websites have been updated to offer basic information about the applicable state law(s) and will generally include a link to a state website with more information.
So the Corps of Engineers properties here, which are, for all intents and purposes, treated in a similar fashion to Parks, in terms of citizen usage, are the only ones who feel as though they are different from all the other areas in the state.
I've been on Corps lakes, as I do a lot of fishing, kayaking, boating, etc. There is no shortage of scumbags, drunken idiots, or other unsavory characters. There was a woman attacked by a guy wielding a taser on one Corps property not too long ago.
So, since the Corps openly states it does not have the manpower to enforce laws on its properties, to me, they would be opening themselves up to an excellent civil lawsuit if one were ever victimized on one of their properties.
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/home/id=1202728860877/Judges-Gun-Rights-Groups-Home-Run-Swing-Strikes-Out?mcode=1202617074542&curindex=0&slreturn=20150511100711
Basically, the court ruled that the 2nd Ammendment does not apply to Corps of Engineers Managed Properties.
So, for the Orwellian Doublespeak from the Court:
"The government's stated and plainly legitimate objective is promoting public safety on Corps property," although he acknowledged, "We lack much of the basic information we would need to assess the risks found at Allatoona Lake. … We also have no evidence about the dangers currently facing Allatoona visitors, including the frequency and nature of crimes committed or of altercations amongst visitors."
Read more: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202728860877/Judges-Gun-Rights-Groups-Home-Run-Swing-Strikes-Out#ixzz3clMJxLC3
Money quote:
The firearm regulation was a “reasonable fit to the Corps’ interests by contributing to visitor safety and protecting infrastructure projects — particularly in light of the Corps’ limited ability to police its own property,” the court ruled in August.
Am I the only one who reads this as, "We can't protect you, and neither can you?"
While it can be argued that the Corps can set its own policies regarding its facilities, this is an interesting case in that:
Georgia is the "Guns Everywhere" :rolleyes: state.
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-173
Legislative findings; preemption of local regulation and lawsuits; exceptions
(a) (1) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms and other weapons is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern.
(2) The General Assembly further declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, and sale of firearms and ammunition and other weapons to the public is not unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se.
(b) (1) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, no county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance or resolution, nor any agency, board, department, commission, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation shall regulate in any manner:
(A) Gun shows;
(B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons;
(C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or
(D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.
Basically, no City, County, Community, etc. can bar carrying of weapons. The state has the sole authority to determine the regulatory nature of weapons possession. It is a blanket statement, preventing anyone from trying to preempt the state's rulings regarding the "Guns Everywhere" :rolleyes: law.
The interesting thing is that, carry is lawful in the National Parks.
Q. Can I have a firearm in every park after February 22, 2010?
A. If you can legally possess a firearm outside of a national park, you can possess it in that park on and after February 22, 2010. It is up to visitors to understand the requirements of federal law and the laws of the states/localities they live in or are travelling to (or through). Park websites have been updated to offer basic information about the applicable state law(s) and will generally include a link to a state website with more information.
So the Corps of Engineers properties here, which are, for all intents and purposes, treated in a similar fashion to Parks, in terms of citizen usage, are the only ones who feel as though they are different from all the other areas in the state.
I've been on Corps lakes, as I do a lot of fishing, kayaking, boating, etc. There is no shortage of scumbags, drunken idiots, or other unsavory characters. There was a woman attacked by a guy wielding a taser on one Corps property not too long ago.
So, since the Corps openly states it does not have the manpower to enforce laws on its properties, to me, they would be opening themselves up to an excellent civil lawsuit if one were ever victimized on one of their properties.