GA Supreme Court-Stephens (2025)

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

The supreme Court of Georgia came out with an opinion the other day saying the state law that bans persons under 21, and not in the military, from getting a carry license is valid.



They mentioned how such persons could carry long guns out in public or have handguns in their homes, cars, and places of business without needing a license.


Those aspects of the ruling are somewhat interesting but the bigger picture is how the Georgia Supreme Court specifically and emphatically rejected the idea of using constitutional rights analysis developed in the federal court system for Georgia.

The Supremes in our state said, in effect, that the Georgia right to keep in their arms is completely subject to any limits of the State legislature, and whatever law the Georgia General Assembly passes will be presumed constitutional, and the highest court in our state would only consider striking that law on constitutional grounds if it is both arbitrary and unreasonable.

That's a very high standard, almost impossible to meet, so don't expect any gun control law in Georgia to be declared unconstitutional for our own state constitution (most recent
version from 1983.)


Case: https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/s25a0334.pdf

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

It would be fair to say, at this point, that Georgia has no "constitutional right" to keep & bear arms

but merely a statutory right, subject to the whims of the politicians in the General Assembly in Atlanta.

 

[jonsmith6391]

This opinion seems to be made in the same spirit in which the NFA, GCA, and Hughes Amendment were passed: criminalizing that which law-abiding citizens should be able to lawfully do since they can be entrusted with such responsibility, but ensuring that they cannot because the criminals who do can instead be penalized and held accountable from a legal perspective.

 

[Georgia Terrapin]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const., Amend. 2.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.” Ga. Const. art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII

Well, there’s the problem. Stephens wanted to apply federal case law interpretations to basically rewrite the Georgia Constitution, instead of directly making a federal 2A challenge. Naturally, the Ga Supreme Court is going to take the path of least resistance.

 

[edman99]

From the decision, last paragraph:

In sum, Stephens has not offered a compelling argument that
the original public meaning of Paragraph VIII is meaningfully dif-
ferent from the construction developed through our Court’s con-
sistent precedent addressing the language of that provision over
more than a century. Because he has not established that our prec-
edent construing this language is clearly wrong, we decline his invi-
tation to reconsider it. And because his only argument that the stat-
ute he has challenged violates Paragraph VIII requires that we re-
consider that precedent, his constitutional challenge to the statute
fail

There may have been better avenues to challenge and make his arguments than what he used.

 

[CQB27]

Some people who willing submit to state permitting concerned about constitutional carry….ironic

 

[BEREZKA]

It would be fair to say, at this point, that Georgia has no "constitutional right" to keep & bear arms

but merely a statutory right, subject to the whims of the politicians in the General Assembly in Atlanta.

Yeah like all rights. This isnt a free country at all.

Does any of this suprise anyone? Look at how much black on black gun crime this state has and tell me we have any chance of keeping gunnrights in the future

 

[Jambo]

Yeah like all rights. This isnt a free country at all.

Does any of this suprise anyone? Look at how much black on black gun crime this state has and tell me we have any chance of keeping gunnrights in the future

You get to keep the rights you're willing to fight for.

The natural state of the world is despotism.

As soon as you honestly believe you have no chance of keeping the rights endowed upon you by your Creator then you have already lost them. We must be vigilant, vocal, and willing to spend to elect or keep good men in the gap.

The time is coming for all of us to recognize that freedom can die completely in one generation's time. What world will we pass to our children?

 

[BEREZKA]

You get to keep the rights you're willing to fight for.

The natural state of the world is despotism.

As soon as you honestly believe you have no chance of keeping the rights endowed upon you by your Creator then you have already lost them. We must be vigilant, vocal, and willing to spend to elect or keep good men in the gap.

The time is coming for all of us to recognize that freedom can die completely in one generation's time. What world will we pass to our children?

No, you keep the rights the state lets you have.

Were you asleep during covid? How may people have Donny held accountable since then? None.

Buddy if people gave a damn about freedumb they wouldnt of flooded the country with immigrants since the 60's, let the patriot act pass, ect.

 

[CTS Tactical]

Some people who willing submit to state permitting concerned about constitutional carry….ironic

Most on here refuse to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 anyway. Why show any concern whether or not they can carry it when you refuse to sell it to them anyway? It is kind of like saying it is bad for the state to violate there rights but ok if I do it.