Georgia Man v. Army Corps of Engineers

B

BarryLee

New member
David James has filed suit against the Army Corps of Engineers after they denied his request to bring a gun to Georgia’s Lake Allatoona. Mr. James visits and camps regularly on property managed by the corps and asked that the District Commander grant him permission to carry a gun which was denied.

Mr. James believes this is a violation of his Second Amendment rights and has filed suit in the Northern District of Georgia. He is being represented by Attorney John Monroe of gun rights group Georgia Carry.org.

I’m not sure how or even if ongoing litigation against the Corps of Engineers in other places like Iowa play into this either way, but obviously this is an issue for all citizens.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/paulding-county-man-sues-to-bring-gun-to-lake-alla/ngKsj/
 
I think the Corp needs to remember that they are like the rest of us, that they breathe the same air, and like the rest of us, wipe from either the front or the back....and realize that they have NO RIGHT to deny us the right to carry on their precious territory...which, by the way, was bought from taxpayers...with taxpayer monies...for the purpose of charging said taxpayers to access same property....
 
The preliminary injunction against the ACE is still in effect, and, it would seem, the individual local offices have not been notified. How about a motion for preliminary injunction with the Idaho court order attached? If ACE is not allowing carry a the lack, it is in contempt of the injunction order.
 
62coltnavy said:
The preliminary injunction against the ACE [in Morris v. USACE] is still in effect, and, it would seem, the individual local offices have not been notified. How about a motion for preliminary injunction with the Idaho court order attached?
Click to expand...
The plaintiffs did just that. Judge Harold Murphy essentially says that the injunction in Morris v. USACE is irrelevant because:
  • The injunction is not final; "...the order Plaintiffs rely upon is an order granting a preliminary injunction, not a final order on the merits..." and "...This lack of finality alone precludes any application of collateral estoppel in this case." (Pgs. 11-12)
  • The injunction in Morris v. USACE was improperly applied; "...it is a well founded legal principle that the government cannot be subjected to offensive collateral estoppel." (Pg. 12)
 
It may be interesting to see how two similar cases against the same defendant, filed in to different jurisdictions plays out. Will the outcome be that citizens are guaranteed their rights in one federal district but are denied them in another?

Is it too early to make a District 9 joke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top