- Joined
- Nov 16, 2016
- Messages
- 22,113
- Reaction score
- 62,826
- Location
- Flowery Branch, GA (Oakwood area..)
They’re just very lazy and is always much easier just to send the applicants away, instead of doing a thoroughly job in pursue of the the truth.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Ga Supreme Court on GWL denials
- Thread starter GAgunLAWbooklet
- Start date
I don't think the law authorizes probate judges to do their own investigations, but rather requires them to make their decision based on the criminal history report given to them by law enforcement.
Even when that criminal history report has obvious gaps in its coverage and seems incomplete.
BUT, IF the Supreme Court or some change in Georgia's O.C.G.A. statutory law were to authorize a probate judge to do her own supplemental investigation of a weapons carry license applicant,
Then I would say that it has to be done on her own time & only after she has issued a GWL to the citizen. If her investigation later shows that the offense in question really was disqualifying of GWL eligibility, then she can move to revoke or cancel the GWL.
The existing law, in 16-11-129, deals with license revocations when , after one is issued, the probate court learns that the person really is disqualified, or has recently become disqualified.
Even when that criminal history report has obvious gaps in its coverage and seems incomplete.
BUT, IF the Supreme Court or some change in Georgia's O.C.G.A. statutory law were to authorize a probate judge to do her own supplemental investigation of a weapons carry license applicant,
Then I would say that it has to be done on her own time & only after she has issued a GWL to the citizen. If her investigation later shows that the offense in question really was disqualifying of GWL eligibility, then she can move to revoke or cancel the GWL.
The existing law, in 16-11-129, deals with license revocations when , after one is issued, the probate court learns that the person really is disqualified, or has recently become disqualified.
Well, the Supreme Court gave its written opinion back in December of 2021.
Plaintiff wins, and Judge Hargrove was in the wrong for not issuing a permit.
She must issue one within the time frame set out in OCGA 16-11-129 even if she deems the
criminal history records to be incomplete or unhelpful.
She is welcome to pursue her own supplemental investigation, but she can't delay issuing a permit unless she has found, within the statutory time deadlines, information that SHOWS (no guessing or wild speculation) the applicant is unqualified.
Until it's published in some appellate reporter books, call it by its Supreme Court docket number: S21G0459
Plaintiff wins, and Judge Hargrove was in the wrong for not issuing a permit.
She must issue one within the time frame set out in OCGA 16-11-129 even if she deems the
criminal history records to be incomplete or unhelpful.
She is welcome to pursue her own supplemental investigation, but she can't delay issuing a permit unless she has found, within the statutory time deadlines, information that SHOWS (no guessing or wild speculation) the applicant is unqualified.
Until it's published in some appellate reporter books, call it by its Supreme Court docket number: S21G0459
The best part of the Court's published opinion:
"In other words, mere speculation or uncertainty about an applicant’s qualifications for a weapons carry license cannot support a determination that an applicant is ineligible or disqualified from obtaining a license."
But the worst part is what they didn't say-- didn't even address.
GWL applicant BELL had made a sworn, notarized affidavit, stating facts (not opinions or conclusions, but bare facts) about the circumstances of the incident for which his was arrested (but never charged in court). He proved, though this affidavit, that it was not a family violence or domestic violence incident, AND he proved that the charge was dropped before he was ever summoned to court even once.
Yet at the Superior Court and Court of Appeals levels, those judges said basically that an applicant can't gather any evidence to help himself. His statements can only be used against him, not FOR him.
The Supreme Court should have been shocked at this pro-government totalitarian approach to justice and bitchSlapped the courts below such that their teeth loosened. Instead, the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion merely observed that the applicant gave a sworn statement in which he denied he had been convicted and denied it was a DV/ FV type of incident, and the Criminal History report did not contradict his statements. That's too mild a way to deal with the Stalinesque power grab the lower courts just attempted to slip into our law.
"In other words, mere speculation or uncertainty about an applicant’s qualifications for a weapons carry license cannot support a determination that an applicant is ineligible or disqualified from obtaining a license."
But the worst part is what they didn't say-- didn't even address.
GWL applicant BELL had made a sworn, notarized affidavit, stating facts (not opinions or conclusions, but bare facts) about the circumstances of the incident for which his was arrested (but never charged in court). He proved, though this affidavit, that it was not a family violence or domestic violence incident, AND he proved that the charge was dropped before he was ever summoned to court even once.
Yet at the Superior Court and Court of Appeals levels, those judges said basically that an applicant can't gather any evidence to help himself. His statements can only be used against him, not FOR him.
The Supreme Court should have been shocked at this pro-government totalitarian approach to justice and bitchSlapped the courts below such that their teeth loosened. Instead, the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion merely observed that the applicant gave a sworn statement in which he denied he had been convicted and denied it was a DV/ FV type of incident, and the Criminal History report did not contradict his statements. That's too mild a way to deal with the Stalinesque power grab the lower courts just attempted to slip into our law.
Dec 21,1979. DeKalb drug it up after I had a CWL for 15 years prior to applying In DeKalb
What a lot of folks don't realize is that one's Criminal History is initiated by the red Fingerprint Card that is submitted whenever one is arrested and booked on a charge. The charges are listed on the back of that card and are entered into the database.
If one is never prosecuted (nolle prosse) or is found Not Guilty of that crime, he can petition the Court to expunge his arrest record and remove that entry. Convictions can't be removed.
Expungement opportunities have been offered to the public many times in recent years, as many folks have found that a record of a baseless arrest unfairly affects their employment eligibility or ability to obtain housing. (Most third-party background check firms won't really investigate the data that they pull; they just report it to the customer. I had a friend named Eduardo who couldn't get an apartment for years. Turns out, "Eddie" [same last name] was a big-time drug runner in Texas. My buddy was a hairdresser from Atlanta who'd never even seen Texas.)
If one is never prosecuted (nolle prosse) or is found Not Guilty of that crime, he can petition the Court to expunge his arrest record and remove that entry. Convictions can't be removed.
Expungement opportunities have been offered to the public many times in recent years, as many folks have found that a record of a baseless arrest unfairly affects their employment eligibility or ability to obtain housing. (Most third-party background check firms won't really investigate the data that they pull; they just report it to the customer. I had a friend named Eduardo who couldn't get an apartment for years. Turns out, "Eddie" [same last name] was a big-time drug runner in Texas. My buddy was a hairdresser from Atlanta who'd never even seen Texas.)
Actually convictions for some crimes can be expunged.
The real disaster for Georgia criminal background checks is that in around 40-45% of the cases, the outcome is never reported. There is no systematic scheme in place t to see that all the different level courts are sending in the required reports. Even the reports are inadequate because the report doesn't show if the charge was nole prossed, dismissed because of the statute of limitations, merged, or heaven forbid, found not guilty.
