Applying for my Georgia WCL - Asked to come to court?

it passes the test everytime too

tailgator, I see that too. This man is willing to step up to the plate. He is going to do what he has to do the right way. You can tell it isn't a problem to him. I respect that.
 
solvability

I have numerous friends with dual citizenship - they have weak reasons for keeping the old one - you can be respectful of your birth country but must be solely loyal to the one that adopts you.

Best of luck in all regards.
Click to expand...
I had a couple buddies in the army with 3-4 legal citizenships. One had france, USA, and Egypt. He was proud of all of them, and it pretty much just happened growing up.

now I will admit his theories about marriages and how to keep wives in line was a little off the wall...but thats a different story(and really my only point is things are different in other places for sure:cool:)

I think that guy had canada too
 
Welcome to America. Don't fret about the Probate Court appearance, just bring your civil documentation with you and go through the process.
 
What I am saying is we have to take any statements and writings into context. When you take into account why the 14th Amendment was written, passed and ratified, it does not apply to this situation. As far as court rulings, there are many court rulings that are not the intent of the law or Constitution. Judicial activism is constantly trying to change the meaning of the Constitution. The anti-gun groups claim the 2nd Amendment is only for a government military and ordinary citizens should not be allowed to own or possess firearms. When you take into context what was happening at that time and why the 2nd Amendment was adopted, the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is very clear.
Click to expand...


The trouble is the second amendment did protect people from state or local laws when it was ratified. In order for the second amendment to apply to the states, we have to have the fourteenth amendment and the Court's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment. The Court's interpretation of the fourteenth amendment as protecting resident aliens came in 1882 in Yick Wo v Hopkins. That's a lot longer for a precedent than McDonald v Chicago.

If we think that applying the fourteenth amendment to protect resident aliens under the equal protection clause is judicial activism, what must we think about McDonald?

If the Op is a legal resident alien, he gets equal protection under the law.
 
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Since the 14th amendment introduced the definition of a citizen, and uses this term in some places, there can therefore be little doubt that when it says "any person", it means any person.
 
If we think that applying the fourteenth amendment to protect resident aliens under the equal protection clause is judicial activism, what must we think about McDonald?
Click to expand...
Many folks do think that way. In fact, some of them want the 14th Amendment repealed altogether. There were some interesting discussions regarding this during the lead-up to McDonald.
 
I suspect the court date is just a way to find out if you are totally legal and etc... showing up proves that.

As for the 'citizen's only' argument and that others don't have the same.... kind of goes against what was written in the Declaration of Independence.
 
What people want is for the Amendments and Constitution to be taken into context. There are three branches of the American government - Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The founders of America and the Constitution warned about abuses of branches not staying within their defined area of authority and the tyranny that would result.

The Judicial branch is to apply in court the laws and governing documents written by the Legislative branch. Unfortunately, many in the Judicial branch have performed legislative duties by interpreting laws, Bill of Rights, Amendments, Constitution in a manner that is not in context with why they were drafted and passed. Again, the 14th Amendment was written, passed and ratified to give freed slaves protection. Those who were born in America were granted citizenship. The 14th Amendment did not define an American citizen.

Some people are also trying to change the meaning of Natural Born Citizen found as a requirement for a President and Presidential candidate. The Constitution does not define Natural Born Citizen as the term was fully understood by people at the time. There are books written during that time that used and covered the term Natural Born Citizen which was a person born in a country whose parents were citizens of that country at the time of the birth of that child.
 
What people want is for the Amendments and Constitution to be taken into context
Click to expand...

Context is only necessary when there is more than one possible way to interpret the law (for example, the 2nd Amendment). When taking the law in a different context could conceivably change it's meaning, the courts should do that. However, since no amount of historical context can possibly change the meaning of the term "any person" as used in the 14th Amendment, it is not not necessary to look any further to determine if non-citizens are entitled to equal protection and due process.
 
Unfortunately, many in the Judicial branch have performed legislative duties by interpreting laws, Bill of Rights, Amendments, Constitution in a manner that is not in context with why they were drafted and passed.
Click to expand...

Good thinking! :p

No 1st amendment protections for the internet.

It could never been even imagined by the writers of the first amendment, so it cannot apply.

The same with radio and TV.
There is no way free speech provisions of any type can apply to either.

Or the telephone.

Damn those courts.:eek:
 
Below is a video link of an interview with Dr. Herb Titus who is well versed in law and the U.S. Constitution. Notice again why the 14th Amendment was drafted, ratified and passed. The phrase 'and subject to the jurisdiction there of' in the 14th Amendment is very important. You cannot take the phase 'All persons' or 'any person' by itself. When the U.S. Constitution was written. the "Law of Nations" was a well known legal writing which covered Natural Born Citizen. Context and the original intent of the authors are very important. Taking the 1st Amendment into context, radio and the Internet would fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqeV0ZlZ1Cw
 
Hi *,

I am writing to update this thread with good news. I had my hearing this morning, and it went well. The judge wanted to verify my legal status and examine my visa documentation. Once done, I was told by him to expect my Georgia WCL by mail within a week.

One thing that I was unaware of is that there is a new WCL card as of January 2nd 2012. Unfortunately it is only for applications received after that date. The new card is similar in structure to a driver's license (i.e. it has a picture, etc.)

Regardless, I am thankful that Georgia is respectful of her legal immigrants. I look forward to many more years in this beautiful state and country.

Thanks for the support y'all. :D
 
This is the news I was hoping for! :) Happy days.

I wish every state was as awesome as Georgia in this regard!

Congratulations.
 
trevor002

Congratulations trevor002.

EDIT: from my wife

Welcome trevor002, I am a former Brit, I know how much it means to you. to do this.
 
I'm glad that it went well.

I personally think Illinois has a gaping hole in their FOID system when it comes to illegal immigrants, and neither party has an interest in closing it. The democrats in northern Illinois are the staunch anti-gunners, but they don't want to anger the hispanic vote and requiring people show up in court - like Georgia asked you to do, or having an additional process to verify citizen status, is going to mainly anger hispanics because in Illinois, hispanics comprise the largest part of immigrants. The republicans aren't interested in changing the FOID system to verify that someone is a citizen because they think the FOID system should be done away with anyway.

Our FOID cards are linked to our Secretary of State / DOMV somewhat in that the photo that they use is the same photo the state has on file for your driver's license. Like, i didn't go in to take a photo for my FOID. i just applied for the FOID and when it showed up - it had my driver's license photo on there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top