MARTA Asks Court to Dismiss GCO’s Lawsuit

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.


6 Responses to “MARTA Asks Court to Dismiss GCO’s Lawsuit”

  1. Wiley Says:

    The very admission of a “training bullitin” would indicate that a policy or procedure did exist. Else how could the “training bullitin” be developed?

  2. mark5019 Says:

    if “marta says its so dangerous” then more law abiding gun toter should help by openly carrying to scare the bad guys:)

  3. ArmedCitizen Says:

    Marta is dangerous because these “special cops” are harassing legally armed honest citizens and afraid to “secure and clear” gangbangers and criminals.
    A simple request to verify “GFL’s” should be sufficient. Harassing, handcuffing, taking of private property, detaining, and threatening legally armed honest citizens is all they can muster up courage to justify their job.
    When we hear of them stopping a gang of thugs looking for trouble, which is obvious to the untrained eye, and seizing their illegal guns and weapons … then I’ll believe this drivel.
    Keep the pressure on the courts to serve justice and arrest these cops, stop acting “stupidly” and honor the Constitution, and then Marta will not be dangerous.

  4. Says:

    I have ridden Marta without a gun and with a gun and I prefer with a gun.
    I have been sitting on my side when the bunch of teenagers pulled their guns out to show them to their friends right on the train. I have never seen a marta officer ever do anything about any of the thugs and rifraff. I will protect myself if I have to thank you!

  5. chizzler Says:

    It is a violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution which guards against unreasonable search and seizure. Once it has been verified that a person has a permit to carry a firearm MARTA cannot keep a person even for a “half hour” that is unreasonable seizure. Why has this part not been brought up? His constitutional rights were violated.

  6. circleglider Says:

    As a Georgia native currently living in California, I just read the briefs in this case with much interest. I’m very curious — Is MARTA still stopping carriers and requesting/demanding identification and proof of licensure? Have they stopped since this suit was filed? Or do they only detain carriers when some “other” suspicion is present?