Carrying for a Cause: Gunowners come to Sumter and Schley. The Americus Times Recorder carried a positive article Saturday on GCO’s service to the local community and meeting for lunch with John Monds, the Libertarian candidate for Governor.

MARTA has filed a motion to have GCO’s federal lawsuit against MARTA dismissed. The case primarily concerns a detention by MARTA Police of GCO member Christopher Raissi, solely because he was carrying a firearm. In its motion, MARTA says that the MARTA system is so dangerous that MARTA police have a duty to stop everyone seen carrying a firearm to make sure they have a GFL. MARTA’s brief does not mention how often a person might reasonably be expected to be stopped while riding the MARTA system all the way from North Springs to the Airport. Perhaps once per train station? MARTA’s brief may be viewed here.

GCO has filed a motion in its federal lawsuit against MARTA, seeking, among other things, an injunction against MARTA’s policy of detaining everyone seen carrying a firearm.  In its motion, GCO quotes MARTA officials who testified that MARTA has a “procedure” to detain anyone seen carrying a firearm to check for ID and GFL.  MARTA police stopped GCO member (and GFL holder) Christopher Raissi who carried a holstered handgun in the Avondale train station.  Police seized Raissi’s handgun and did not return it until the detention ended in a non-public area of the station to which they had moved Raissi.  The officers who stopped Raissi admitted that Raissi was not suspected of any criminal activity other than the possibility that Raissi was carrying without a GFL.  They stopped him for the sole purpose of checking to see if he was licensed to carry.  Comparing the facts of this case to a United States Supreme Court opinion that it is unconstitutional to stop a motorist just to see if he has a driver’s license, GCO argues that stopping someone just to see if he has a GFL violates the Fourth Amendment.

GCO’s motion also asks the court to rule that MARTA officials violated the state Open Records Act multiple times.  Raissi sent the chief of the MARTA police a certified letter asking for records related to his detention.  MARTA admits receiving the request and that it failed to respond.  In another request, GCO lawyer John Monroe made an oral request, followed by multiple email followups, to the assistant police chief, asking for MARTA’s policy pertaining to people carrying firearms on MARTA post-HB 89.  The assistant chief admits he received the emails, but denies that an ORA request can be made via email.  He admits he did not respond to the request, primarily because MARTA has a “procedure” for dealing with people carrying firearms but not a “policy.”

The documents in this case may be viewed here.

Despite Atlanta’s Parks Director filing a sworn affidavit saying the Atlanta web site no longer says that guns are banned in parks, Atlanta’s web site still says guns are banned in parks.

GCO filed two more briefs in its Fulton County Superior Court case against Atlanta over Atlanta’s parks carry ban, including one exposing Atlanta’s false claim that it has changed its web site.  No doubt Atlanta will rush to fix its faux pas, so GCO has preserved it, complete with date/time stamp, for the court to see.  The briefs may be viewed here.

In GCO’s federal lawsuit against MARTA for, among other things, detaining people seen carrying firearms, MARTA continues to assert that it is not a “state or local government agency” subject to the federal Privacy Act.  As such, MARTA says, it is not required to provide the warning that every other state or local government agency in GA is required to provide before asking a citizen for his or her social security number.  A copy of MARTA’s brief on this subject may be found here.

The federal district court in Atlanta has denied GCO’s motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit against deputies who illegally arrested a GCO member for disorderly conduct and carrying a concealed weapon.  The court ruled earlier in the case that there was no probable cause to arrest GCO member Luke Woodard on either charge.  The denial of the motion effectively ends the case, with GCO having established the arrest was improper, but no damages being awarded.  The case documents may be viewed here.

In responding to GCO’s second motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit to end Atlanta’s regulation of carrying firearms, Atlanta has asserted that the case is moot.  Atlanta claims that it no longer regulates carrying firearms in parks.  It does, however, regulate carrying firearms on all airport property.  Atlanta’s brief may be viewed here.

A GCO member in Richmond County was involved in a firearm discharge that authorities determined was accidental, with no charges to be filed.  Nonetheless, sheriff’s deputies seized the firearm to have it tested to make sure the shot came from the gun in question.  Deputies told the member it would take at least 6 months and that the GBI crime lab was not currently accepting .32 guns for testing!  When GCO lawyers contacted the Richmond County attorney to inquire about the situation, the gun was released to the GCO member.

In his federal lawsuit against Paulding County deputies for arresting him for carrying a concealed weapon, when the weapon was openly carried, GCO member Luke Woodard has filed a reply brief in support of his motion for reconsideration.  The motion asks the court to reconsider its ruling that Woodard cannot seek damages for the concealed weapons charge because the deputies had “arguable probable cause” to arrest Woodard for disorderly conduct.  The documents may be viewed here.

In GCO member Luke Woodard’s federal civil rights case against two Paulding County deputies who wrongfully arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon and disorderly conduct, the deputies have opposed Woodard’s motion for reconsideration.  In his motion, Woodard had asked the court to reconsider its order finding that arguable probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct provided qualified immunity to the deputies for the concealed weapons arrest.  Woodard also has abandoned his claims for further declaratory and injunctive relief.  The documents may be found here.