Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 7/20/2008 2:08:15 PM EDT
I was just reading this STORY and it was listing all of GCO's accomplishments.

2006

> Carroll County Probate Court and the Georgia Department of Public Safety —- required Social Security number and employment information on permit applications. (Settled)

> Cobb County Probate Court —- required Social Security number and employment information on permit applications. (Settled)

> Henry County Probate Court —- required Social Security number and employment information on permit applications and took more than 60 days to issue permit. (Judge ruled)

> Coweta County —- ban on weapons in public parks. (Judge ruled)

> Coweta County —- required Social Security number and employment information on permit applications and took more than 60 days to issue permit. (Judge ruled)

> Cobb County Probate Court —- refusal to issue temporary renewal license. (Suit dismissed)

> Gwinnett County —- ban on weapons in public parks. (County changed ordinance)

2007

> Cherokee County Probate Court —- required Social Security number and employment information on permit applications and took more than 60 days to issue permits. (Consent order)

> Athens-Clarke County —- ban on weapons in public parks. (Consent order)

> Fulton County, Johns Creek, Milton, Union City and Atlanta, East Point, Roswell, Sandy Springs —- ban on weapons in public parks. Judge ruled against Atlanta. (Fulton County and the other cities changed ordinances)

2008

> Stone Mountain Memorial Association —- ban on weapons inside the park. (Law changed)

Pending (July 2008)

> Atlanta —- threat to arrest anyone with a gun in a nonsecured area at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

> Fulton County Probate Court —- Georgia residency requirement to receive a gun permit.


When did the Stone Mountain thing happen? This was the first that I heard about it and I would have thought that the emails that GCO sends out would have covered this. Maybe I missed on or something.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 3:19:56 PM EDT
Here is GCO's page on this issue. There appears to be no resolution.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:43:09 PM EDT
Thanks, I should have stated.

I am a GCO Member and get their emails. I checked their site before I posted.

Odd how the AJC would say it was resolved but GCO never mentioned it.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:56:01 PM EDT
i think they meant "challenged" not changed
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 5:11:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2008 5:12:09 AM EDT by Malum-Prohibitum]
Still pending. Attorney General Thurbert Baker, an elected official, is defending this preempted ordinance in spite of STATE preemption law.

What is wrong with that picture?

Is not the attorney general to defend state law?

What?
Link Posted: 7/21/2008 5:50:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DKing:
i think they meant "challenged" not changed


Ahh. Now I understand. Man, you'd think you'd have to go to something like journalism school to write articles for the AJC.

Then of course there is Maureen.
Top Top