Are Georgia Firearms Licenses public record?


PDA






P.O.2010
December 21, 2008, 04:16 PM
Greetings.

My question is whether or not a Georgia Firearms License issued by a county Probate Court Judge is part of the public record and will appear on the results of a standard (i.e. internet or basic records search company) or FBI background check.

The reason I ask is that I am considering applying for another job where my prospective employer, sadly, not a firearms lover.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are Georgia Firearms Licenses public record?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
4thPointOfContact
December 21, 2008, 08:48 PM
A Darn good question.
You may wish to ask the same at Georgia Packing (http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/) there are a couple of Very sharp legal eagles there.

Lone_Gunman
December 21, 2008, 09:47 PM
I think any license issued by the state is public record. How could it not be?

Threeband
December 21, 2008, 10:27 PM
Do you need a license to buy a firearm in Georgia?

Dang, I always thought Georgia was one of the "good" states.

Seriously, Georgia has been high on my list of refuges, so I'd really like to know.

Don't need a license in Maryland!

athensguy
December 21, 2008, 10:38 PM
GFL is for carry and exempts you from having to wait for a check.

blkbrd666
December 21, 2008, 10:39 PM
I believe he's talking about a Concealed Carry License...not a purchase license.

Lone_Gunman
December 21, 2008, 10:57 PM
The Georgia Firearms License is our carry permit. It allows you to carry open or concealed, and exempts you from NICS checks.

Thor Bloodax
December 21, 2008, 11:09 PM
You do not need a permit to purchase a gun in Georgia. But , if you buy from an FFL holder, you must still run through the "background check" loop OR have a Georgia Firearms License which will exempt you from the background check. To buy from a private seller: see the gun, dicker on the price, pay the price, take it home.

Threeband
December 23, 2008, 08:43 PM
Well that's better!

My confidence in Georgia is restored.

Georgia remains near the top of my list.

Lone_Gunman
December 23, 2008, 09:24 PM
Our concealed carry laws are pretty weak, despite the fact that they were improved some earlier this year.

You still can't carry at a "public gathering". Problem is, no one will define what a public gathering is. One poor sap got arrested near Atlanta by some local police because he was carrying at a Walmart, and they tried to claim that was a public gathering.

rfwobbly
December 23, 2008, 11:04 PM
The best part is that Georgia licenses the person (as it should be), not the gun. You don't even need to own a gun to get the permit/license. If you own several guns, you can carry according to your mood.

Samuel Adams
December 24, 2008, 01:15 AM
The laws will be much better as soon as we get rid of that pesky Public Gathering law.

Howard Roark
December 24, 2008, 10:08 AM
If your employer has a simple background check done by the local law enforcement agency it is a Criminal History Consent Form. There are only three boxes to check.
1. No identifiable record in GCIC.
2. See attached printout from search.
3. Positive ID can not be made without fingerprint comparason.

I do not know if there is a list somewhere they can access. The standard "background check" is for criminal activity.

Thor Bloodax
December 26, 2008, 01:29 PM
I called the clerk at the Marriage License and Pistol Toters License(now the Firearms License ) office in Bibb County, (Macon, Georgia) and they assured me that the Georgia Firearms Licenses were NOT public record.

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2008, 04:54 PM
I am not sure you got accurate information about Georgia licenses not being public record. I don't see how the state could refuse to provide this information upon request under freedom of information laws.

Wouldn't it suck if the State refused to tell you whether your doctor was licensed?

Whether you agree or not, in most states concealed carry is a priviledge granted by the state by license.

JR47
December 26, 2008, 07:06 PM
In Pickens County, Ga. the list of holders of CCW/ Ga. Firearms License is available to "proper authorities" only. FOI can be refused if the subject is sensitive enough to represent a threat to the safety and well-being.

Not too long ago, a newspaper in Virginia, in Roanoke, obtained a list of CCW holders for that county. A judge ruled that they could NOT post them, nor make them available for review.

anymanusa
December 26, 2008, 07:53 PM
Wouldn't it suck if the State refused to tell you whether your doctor was licensed?

Completely different, not even comparable. Hippocratic oath, a profession caring for the public state licensing required to be a doctor vs. the privacy of someone protecting themselves?

Not even an argument here.

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2008, 08:35 PM
I disagree, and feel it is comparable, since both require licenses. This is a drawback to allowing concealed carry to be a priviledge licensed by the state. The state has to be accountable for licensing, and the only way to ensure that the state is accountable is to allow the free flow of information to the public.

I don't care if they publish my name on a list of permit holders or not. Many gun owners tend to be secretive about their gun ownership, often to their detriment.

Are there any other state issued licenses that the public is not allowed to know about?

anymanusa
December 26, 2008, 09:17 PM
I don't care if they publish my name on a list of permit holders or not. Many gun owners tend to be secretive about their gun ownership, often to their detriment.


Where do you get this stuff from?

Carrying a concealed weapon requires a 'permit'. Working on somebodies body, such as a doctor does, requires an extensive education, many accreditations, and a license.

The state has to be accountable for licensing

Exactly who is the state accountable to for the issuing of ccw permits?

Lone_Gunman
December 26, 2008, 09:34 PM
No need to get personal, I believe we have a diference of opinion. The state is accountable to its citizens for issuing permits. There is no way for the citizens to know if permits are issued fairly and in accordance with law unless the records are available for public scrutiny. I don't see why you should worry much about whether your name is in some public record as being a permit holder. There are already lots of ways for people to find out that you are a gun owner. Your mailman knows, if you subscribe to any gun magazines or are a member of the NRA. Your ISP knows you access gun websites. Your neighbors have probably seen you buying ammo at Walmart. The UPS man knows he has delivered ammo to your house... Its just really not a secret.

The argument has been made that if this information is made public, you might be targeted for some kind of crime? Why would a criminal want to break in on me knowing that I have a gun? If he comes when I am not here, how is he going to crack the half ton safe? Fifty percent of US households have a gun anyway, so its going to be pretty simple to find someone with a gun.

I would be all for eliminating the permit process completely, and going with a Vermont or Alaska type plan, where any legal citizen can carry without a permit. No need for a list in that situation. But if the government is going to get to decide who can and cannot enjoy the priviledge of concealed carry, then there needs to be some way to review the records. All other licensing information is available to the public. Would you favor the government being able to issue permits with no oversight or scrutiny? Do you trust them to do it fairly unless they know they are being watched?

anymanusa
December 27, 2008, 04:32 AM
No need to get personal, I believe we have a diference of opinion. The state is accountable to its citizens for issuing permits. There is no way for the citizens to know if permits are issued fairly and in accordance with law unless the records are available for public scrutiny. I don't see why you should worry much about whether your name is in some public record as being a permit holder.

Not getting personal, just practical.

It has been detailed on this board many times as to why it would be dangerous to the holder if his permit were to be public record. With over 6000+ posts I find it hard to believe that you haven't yet stumbled upon that conversation here yet.

I don't have the same UPS or USPS man every day for them to know. My ISP isn't in the business of logging or statistics as far as I know, and my neighbors have absolutely no idea that I carry. My wife doesn't even know this, nor should she.

I can't count on other people to be rational and mature and handle themselves intelligently, my wife, brothers, and friends included. Nobody can know that I carry a loaded weapon whenever I decide to carry it. It is not safe for anyone else to know, lest they be the 'decider' in such a situation that may or may not call for drawing a weapon. I can't believe that you could have such a problem understanding such a concept.

My carry weapon is for me to know, period.

GTSteve03
December 27, 2008, 09:10 AM
My carry weapon is for me to know, period.
You, and any person working in your state government that issues you the Concealed Carry Permit, and any other person they may inform along the way or that can get access to those records.

I see where Lone_Gunman is going with this, however I think most states get around the issue of proper licensing by going with the "Shall Issue" permits, which means that assuming you pass a criminal background check, you get a permit no matter what else. It's rather difficult to falsify that kind of information to prevent someone from getting a license.

Now, the states in which permits are "May Issue" and it's up to the discretion of the local sheriff or whatnot, in those situations knowing who has a CCL and who doesn't would seem to be more of an issue.

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2008, 09:36 AM
My carry weapon is for me to know, period.

Without transparency in government and easy flow of information from the government to citizens, there is no way to ensure that permits are being handed out fairly. You seem to favor secret government records that the public cannot access or audit. This is generally a bad idea.

This is an unintended consequence of the permit process. All state licenses pretty much have to be available for public scrutiny in order to ensure fairness, whether its a medical license, liquor license, gun permit, etc.

Are there any other licenses out there that the public is barred from having knowledge of?

Finally, I don't know of any case where the release of CCW information has resulted in an permit holder becoming the target of a crime. If anything, I believe it would make him less of a target. I think paranoia about this is mostly in the minds of gun owners. If you really believe that no one is paying attention when they deliver gun related paraphenalia to your home, I think you are deluding yourself as well. The fact that you don't always have the same UPS or USPS man just means there are more people out there who know of your hobby.

possum
December 27, 2008, 09:57 AM
i work for the government, i have no secrets and the "man" knows everything so to me it really dosen't bother me one way or another.

anymanusa
December 27, 2008, 01:18 PM
there is no way to ensure that permits are being handed out fairly

Are you serious? I learned a LONG LONG LONG time ago that there is not a whole lot fair in life, much less the governing of man.



Finally, I don't know of any case where the release of CCW information has resulted in an permit holder becoming the target of a crime. If anything, I believe it would make him less of a target.

You ever seen someone wearing a fur coat get doused with paint or such? You ever seen it on the news or in the paper? Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. You think you're immune to such treatment as a gun toter? I don't. Like I said, that infomation is for ME TO KNOW, and NOT public record.



The fact that you don't always have the same UPS or USPS man just means there are more people out there who know of your hobby.

Again, you HAVE to be kidding. Do you for one second think that any delivery person keeps a tabulation of deliveries that they make in a day, month, year?

I am not in the least bid worried about it.

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2008, 02:34 PM
Like I said, that infomation is for ME TO KNOW, and NOT public record.

Like it or not, if the state issues you a permit, its in the public record.

Do you for one second think that any delivery person keeps a tabulation of deliveries that they make in a day, month, year?

Well I am pretty sure my UPS guy knows if he delivers a 50 pound box labelled ORMD on the outside, that he just delivered me a bunch of ammo. And the last time he brought me a rifle, he met me at the door with "Got a new rifle for ya!"...

But go ahead and believe what you want! Reality should not affect perception.

JR47
December 27, 2008, 03:21 PM
Well I am pretty sure my UPS guy knows if he delivers a 50 pound box labelled ORMD on the outside, that he just delivered me a bunch of ammo. And the last time he brought me a rifle, he met me at the door with "Got a new rifle for ya!"...

Well, my experience of 12/24/08 with UPS indicates that they don't "know" a whole lot. A package, clearly marked Signature Release was left, unattended, on my front porch. Overnight, and all. It contained a pistol!!

In mid-December of 2005, FedEx left TWO signature required marked packages on the front porch of the WRONG house. They contained a Model 1903 Springfield, and a Model 1917 Enfield. The address, beside the signature required stamp, was correct.

Most delivery people, unless they will have to pay for the loss themselves, tend to be pretty cavalier about packages. In the USPS, if the carrier mis-delivers, loses, or breaks a Registered package, they are responsible for it's value, and it's deducted from their pay.

I worked for the USPS, and my son worked for UPS. There is little, if any, incentive to remember packages on a daily basis.

Lone_Gunman
December 27, 2008, 03:29 PM
There is little, if any, incentive to remember packages on a daily basis.

That is not the point, my friend. The point is that if a UPS or USPS person was motivated to steal your guns, or to pass your name on to theives who would steal your guns, they can certainly figure out if you are likely to have them based on the mail and packages you receive.

rscalzo
December 27, 2008, 04:02 PM
Here is what I dealt with under NJ law. It was sufficiently vague to the point where some requests were in the gray area requiring the services of a legal opinion.

In addition to those records of the Office of the Governor that are exempted by the provisions of the Open Public Records Act, the following records maintained by the Office of the Governor, or part thereof, shall not be deemed to be government records under the provisions of Chapter 404, P.L. 2001, and Chapter 73, P.L. 1963, and thus shall not be subject to public inspection, copying or examination:

Any record made, maintained, kept on file or received by the Office of the Governor in the course of its official business which is subject to an executive privilege or grant of confidentiality established or recognized by the Constitution of this State, statute, court rules or judicial case law.


All portions of records, including electronic communications, that contain advisory, consultative or deliberative information or other records protected by a recognized privilege.


All portions of records containing information provided by an identifiable natural person outside the Office of the Governor which contains information that the sender is not required by law to transmit and which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed.


If any of the foregoing records shall contain information not exempted by the provision of the Open Public Records Act or the preceding subparagraph's (a), (b) or (c) hereof then, in such event, that portion of the record so exempt shall be deleted or excised and access to the remainder of the record shall be promptly permitted.

No public agency shall disclose the resumes, applications for employment or other information concerning job applicants while a recruitment search is ongoing. The resumes of successful candidates shall be disclosed once the successful candidate is hired. The resumes of unsuccessful candidates may be disclosed after the search has been concluded and the position has been filled, but only where the unsuccessful candidate has consented to such disclosure.

The following records shall not be considered to be government records subject to public access pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., as amended and supplemented:

Records of complaints and investigations undertaken pursuant to the Model Procedures for Internal Complaints Alleging Discrimination, Harassment or Hostile Environments in accordance with the State Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment and Hostile Environments in the Workplace adopted by Executive Order No. 106 (Whitman 1999), whether open, closed or inactive.


Information concerning individuals as follows:


Information relating to medical, psychiatric or psychological history, diagnosis, treatment or evaluation;


Information in a personal income or other tax return;


Information describing a natural person's finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness, except as otherwise required by law to be disclosed.


Test questions, scoring keys and other examination data pertaining to the administration of an examination for public employment or licensing.


Records of a department or agency in the possession of another department or agency when those records are made confidential by a regulation of that department or agency adopted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. and Executive Order No. 9 (Hughes 1963), or pursuant to another law authorizing the department or agency to make records confidential or exempt from disclosure.


Records of a department or agency held by the Office of Information Technology (OIT) or the State Records Storage Center of the Division of Archives and Records Management (DARM) in the Department of State, or an offsite storage facility outside of the regular business office of the agency. Such records shall remain the legal property of the department or agency and be accessible for inspection or copying only through a request to the proper custodian of the department or agency. In the event that records of a department or agency have been or shall be transferred to and accessioned by the State Archives in the Division of Archives and Records Management, all such records shall become the legal property of the State Archives, and requests for access to them shall be submitted directly to the State Archives.



The Privacy Study Commission created by Chapter 404, P.L. 2001, is hereby directed to promptly study the issue of whether and to what extent the home address and home telephone number of citizens should be made publicly available by public agencies and to report back to the Governor and the Legislature within six months.

This is a list of what cannot be released by a government agency
http://www.nj.gov/grc/custodians/exempt/

Permits are not listed so I'm guessing they could be released. However that would be on a statewide level, not municipal. Years back I did get a subpoena to release all info of purchases from one individual. It was in reference to a will that was being disputed.

JR47
December 27, 2008, 07:05 PM
The point is that if a UPS or USPS person was motivated to steal your guns, or to pass your name on to theives who would steal your guns, they can certainly figure out if you are likely to have them based on the mail and packages you receive.

USPS rarely ships guns, except between FFL to FFL. They are sent Registered Mail, making the Carrier responsible for obtaining a signature at the address, and also responsible for loss of said package, personally.

UPS was the group who, along with FedEx, were bleeding guns and ammo. In response, both organizations simply required the most expensive rates, ostensibly with the best security. They are still, if you read the papers, not above the odd loss of an entire shipment of guns.

As far as theft goes, UPS and FedEx tend to have larger delivery areas than USPS. This is mostly due to the fact that USPS manually sorts letters and magazines before leaving for the route. UPS drivers arrive to find their trucks loaded, and a route bill waiting. They really don't deliver mail. It would have to be a literally grand theft, as they would soon be caught, if only from the pattern of robberies, and their proximity.

rmodel65
December 29, 2008, 01:53 AM
i carry open here in GA so, anyone who looks my way knows i carry :P

If you enjoyed reading about "Are Georgia Firearms Licenses public record?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!