Welcome to The Outdoors Trader

Register Now
  1. Welcome to The Outdoors Trader! Join today, registration is easy!

    You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
  2. Featured Listings are working again! Feature your listing on every page for $3 a day! Click here for all the info.
    Dismiss Notice

Georgia's Firearm Permit Reciprocity list for those that travel

Thread in 'Law & Order' started by medium187mph, Aug 1, 2018.

  1. SirSpanksAlot

    SirSpanksAlot ODT Junkie! Supporter

    Supporter

    104   0

    Messages:
    3,425
    Likes Received:
    1,524
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Location:
    Flowery Branch, GA
    Rating
    100%
    Sucks that I have to drive to buffalo tomorrow, returning on Sunday. My permit is good in every state on the way, but ny, so I have to leave it home. I can’t have it in the vehicle even if it is unloaded and locked up. Instant felony just having it with me.
     
  2. allamericaninfidel

    allamericaninfidel ODT Junkie! Supporter

    Supporter

    76   0

    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    1,024
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Location:
    lilburn ga. 30047
    Rating
    100%
    Can’t be true — just not possible
     
    BanjoJohn likes this.
  3. Clarke123

    Clarke123 Love Them UGA Dogs! Supporter

    Supporter

    196   0

    Messages:
    4,383
    Likes Received:
    1,988
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Location:
    WAS: Cumming, GA NOW: Punta Gorda, Florida
    Rating
    100%
    The "Easy Fix" for this is to "Reciprocate" with every SC tagged vehicle pulled over in Georgia ...
    It's election time: let your representatives know how you feel about this, especially if you live in a town/county adjoining SC!
     
  4. timboce

    timboce Survivalist

    21   0

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    85
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Location:
    30066
    Rating
    100%
    Marbury V. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803); Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall ruled! “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect” “anything that is in conflict with the supreme law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefather had intended that the supreme law would be the base of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be nell and void of law. it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for the unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no court are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bond to obey it it operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law”
    Bryars v. United States 273USR 28:

    “Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein. When a Federal Officer participates officially with a state official in a search, so that in substance and effect, it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use in evidence of the things seized is to be tested in Federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking were conclusively the Federal agent.”

    Boyd v. United States 116 USR 616:

    “The Court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers, to make the non - production of them a confession of the allegations which is pretended they will prove. The seizure of compensatory production of a man’s private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, violation of the fifth amendment, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture is equally within the prohibition of the fifth amendment.”
     
  5. timboce

    timboce Survivalist

    21   0

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    85
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Location:
    30066
    Rating
    100%
    16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 177:

    “Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court.”

    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law” (Demand a Declaratory Judgment)
    The Definition a License is "A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts any personel belonging without possessing any estate or interest therein", and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is NOT assignable. The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal TOTALLY or, a trespass, a tort, a clear violation of LAW and/or otherwise totally NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER ANY CONDITION!!! See People vs. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W. 2nd 2 @4. A permit granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, A FEE, to a person, firm, or Corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the POLICE POWER of Government. Please see 9th & 10th Amendments of THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Pay special attention to the phrase "nor prohibited by it" or Rights previously guaranteed may not be enumerated away by addition onto the CONSTITUTION, or denied or disparaged away by adding onto it.



    DECIDE!!!

    NO STATE may convert a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and require a LICENSE or FEE for the exercise of that RIGHT!!! Please see MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if a STATE does erroneously do require A LICENSE OR FEE for exercise of the RIGHT, the Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE AND OR FEE and exercise the RIGHT WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY!!! Please see SCHUTTLESWORTH vs. BIRMINGHAM 373 U.S. 262. YOU CAN NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES 230 F.2nd 486. You have a PERFECT DEFENSE TO THE ELEMENT OF WILLFULLNESS if you rely on the advice of Counsel or upon a DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES.




    American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d:

    16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

    “Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” Bary v. United States - 273 US 128

    “Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

    (You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)
     
  6. timboce

    timboce Survivalist

    21   0

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    85
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Location:
    30066
    Rating
    100%
    You can sue these cops for $10,000for every right they break!
    So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

    If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

    Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

    This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

    That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

    The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.

    Page 5 U. S. 179


    Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

    This is too extravagant to be maintained.

    In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

    There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

    It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

    The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

    If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavors to preserve?

    "No person,' says the Constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

    Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

    From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution

    Page 5 U. S. 180

    contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

    Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!


    The oath of office,


    too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

    "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."


    Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

    If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

    It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

    Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

    The rule must be discharged.”


    anything in conflict with your constitutional rights is null and void! ARTICLE 6 Paragraph 2 The supremacy clause & its already been established by the supreme court in Marberry VS. Maddison in 1803 volume 5 US page 137 By honorable judge john marshal chief justice supreme court! you can sue these cop’s & politicians for $10,000 for every right they brake!

    A necessary & properly armed militia can come to gather and decide to tell these politician’s that by breaking down our constitution your giving aid and comfort to the enemy of our country which is breaking the law title 18 of United states code section 2381 which say’s

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
     
  7. webicknell

    webicknell ODT Junkie! Supporter

    Supporter

    113   0

    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    2,411
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Location:
    Young Harris
    Rating
    100%
    Quick question....

    Traveling to Florida for a week... Leaving on 10/18 (tomorrow)...
    I do have a valid GA CCW.... Can I carry weapon in car to FL and CC while in FL?

    Thanks
     
  8. medium187mph

    medium187mph The Hen that laid the Golden Legos

    170   0

    Messages:
    9,542
    Likes Received:
    10,829
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Location:
    Harris County- In God We Trust
    Rating
    100%
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Outdoorsman

    0   0

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    47
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2019
    Location:
    Senoia
    Um, yes. There is a list on page 1. Florida is on it.
     
  10. Georgia Terrapin

    Georgia Terrapin Tracker Supporter

    Supporter

    12   0

    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Location:
    Woodstock, GA
    Rating
    100%
    The CCW app has all the states' info also, right on your smart phone.
     
Loading...