Wal-Mart...a public gathering?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Georgia Law Is Murky

Sadly, Georgia law is so murky on this issue I almost do not expect a police officer to know what is and is not a public gathering. While I do expect a police officer to know that WalMart is not, based on the State v. Burns case that held McDonalds is not a public gathering even if the public is gathered there, I would not expect a police officer to know about a great many other places. As a result, we can only expect that a certain number of police officers are going to have mistaken ideas.

Check out this link as an example of what happened just this weekend.

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=678


When finished there, I invite those interested in Georgia's law to peruse the "Places Off Limits" forum on the same page (it is the same forum where that thread is posted). Many of you may not know that Georgia is the most restrictive state in the nation when it comes to where you can and cannot carry a gun. Even California and Massachussetts allow carry into more places than does Georgia. As a result, one can only expect that police officers in Georgia are going to be biased toward declaring places off limits, since that bias is built into the law.

When perusing the Places Off Limits forum and discovering all the restrictions in Georgia, keep in mind that I know for a fact that several of the posters are attorneys, several are police officers, and yet you will see a lot of disagreement about what is off limits, especially when it comes to public gatherings. You can imagine the choice one who carries is confronted with daily when even lawyers and police officers cannot agree on whether a place is or is not off limits.

Georgia places a lot of the parking lots off limits, too, and criminalizes the carry of a firearm even while going "to" such a place, in addition to "while at."

Have fun perusing the various threads, and feel free to post your opinions over there.
 
I've always wondered about gun shows as public gatherings. The law says nothing about "concealed." It deals strictly with "possession." There are a LOT of people in possession of deadly weapons at those public gatherings.


I have to wonder if anyone considered the charging the hero who shot the carjacker in Cobb County last year with 16-11-127?

All those people were gathered together on the road for the common purpose of driving north...
 
I've lived in Georgia all of my life. I've spoken with a number of police officers who were totally without a clue as to the meaning of this or that statute.

One tried to tell me that the age of consent in Georgia was eighteen and always had been. I took the copy of the Georgia Code he was studying, turned to the index, looked it up and handed it back to him. Not only was the age of consent 14 at the time (16 now) but the date of the statute was 1908.

I've also been present in court when the judge found out the young woman involved in a statutory rape case had been 15 at the time of the alleged incident. Upon questioning the arresting officer and discovering the officer was ignorant of the statute-his response was scathing. He also had some pithy remarks aimed at the district attorney's office.

Based on personal experience, I have no expectation of police officers actually knowing the fine points of the law. Most do. Some don't.

Based also on personal experience, there is often variance between my memory of events and police officers' memories of events. Technology is edging to the point where micro miniature video/audio devices which broadcast a permanent record back to a locked recorder in the vehicle will be affordable. I wonder if memories will improve after a few get caught out with a permanent record?
 
OIC, when a startled CCW holder grasps the grip of his gun without drawing, it is a crime. But if an LEO does it with intent to intimidate it is perfectly acceptable...
Click to expand...
Police are governed by a different set of rules than the great, unbadged masses are.

Also ... from what I know, police are not trained to go for their guns at random. Certainly not if (for instance) they were being questioned by Internal Affairs or somesuch. If an officer did that, it is likely that they would be in trouble too. Are you implying that the CCW holder in this case had a valid reason for going for his pistol (assuming, of course, that he actually did so)?


There's a possibility that Georgia law could actually be interpreted as prohibiting a licensed person from carrying a firearm in any public place? Wow.
 
There's a possibility that Georgia law could actually be interpreted as prohibiting a licensed person from carrying a firearm in any public place? Wow.

Cordex, no, the court of appeals in the State v. Burns case took up this issue in the context of a guy carrying in McDonalds. They specifically looked at the State's argument that it was a public gathering and ruled that this blurs the distinction the legislature intended between "public gathering" and "public place" and stated that such an interpretation would render the firearms license useless because of the risk of arrest anytime a licensee left his home.

If you go to www.georgiapacking.org and use the forums search function (enter "Burns") you will see it quoted in its entirety at least twice.
 
TODD-45, Do you know the status of this charge? The solicitor's office refuses to discuss whether there is even an official, public charge (and refuses quite rudely, too! :fire: talking to them was like :banghead: )
 
Wal Mart

"Based on personal experience, I have no expectation of police officers actually knowing the fine points of the law. Most do. Some don't."



Byron Quick;
I'd like to respectfully make a point here. You seem to have Police confused with attorneys. No police officer, and actually no lawyer, should be expected to know the, as you put it, "fine points of the law". My training efforts always included the admonishment that officers should be conversant, which is different from your opinion, in the laws they enforce and they should always know when to get guidance from the city attorney in cases they don't know the case law for. I have always found, in Georgia, the "average, reasonable and prudent" officer works very hard to be right and to do the right thing in exercising their powers of arrest. Also if you don't mind a suggestion: Go back to the OCGA you found the age of consent in and read the part where the law makes the point that it is a "limited age of consent" (my phraseology). The kids at or above the age of consent can marry, or have sex...with written permission from their parent/s or guardian/s. They can't enter into debt, buy a car or house or many other things. Also the age of "majority" is 18, as you said. The age of a young person who has limited emancipation is 17 in Georgia.
All of the aforementioned is, of course, my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer and do not attempt, in any way, to give you legal advice. I would like to suggest that you cut the cops a break in some of what you say. Often while you would have them sitting around studying the OCGA I would prefer that they are on the streets and alleys patrolling and keeping all of Georgia safe...Which is what the officers in Georgia always try to do to the best of their abilities.
 
Wal Mart

I agree that they might. It's also possible they were flying blind when they made the arrest. Unless a cop is fortunate enought to either get some of the less obvious laws in their initial training for certifcation or to get it in a mandatory monthly inservice they may well encounter this and other laws for the first time in the course of responding to a call.
One of the earlier posts by a gentleman who stated that it was ad, or a crime for a CCP holder to put their hands on a gun...but not for a cop to do so. You are exactly right. I really question the reasoning ability of a person, LEO or otherwise, grabbing a gun handle in a public place. (Where you might reasonably expect to encounter the public. If the moron in the story grabbed a pistol handle when challenged by uniformed officers, (As in the OCGA...prominently displaying their badge of office), he has no business carrying anything he might hurt another person with. In Georgia many of the places an officer might be in plain clothes asked for the officers to either leave it in the car or have it concealed. AGAIN..."concealed means just that! Concealed from view). I wish you guys could listen to some of the calls answered every day made by citizens who report a man with a gun in such and such a location. One such call lead me directly to the only person, other than me, carrying a weapon in the store. Another uniformed officer from the same department. The citizen honestly approached us and said she didn't think it was right for cops to carry guns. No matter if they're in uniform or not.
 
And why not? If she does not think it is right for me to carry, then perhaps you should not be able to, either. :)


As for him putting his hand on his gun, it really misses the point, since the newspaper said he was charged with carrying a deadly weapon to a public gathering.

I don't think anybody here really advocates reaching for your gun when the police approach. ;)

People here are just incensed at the thought that the public gathering clause might be enforced more broadly than its already too broad reach . . . :scrutiny:
 
The problem, as I see it, is not police ignorance of the law. The problem is that the law is too large and too complex for any man to know by rote even those parts of it that affect his everyday doings. There should not be so many laws. It's said that ignorance is no excuse, but in the face of such a ponderance of law, I think it ought to be.

Now let's make it worse. Now that you have many complex laws, let's give court rulings the force of law, so that just reading the law cannot tell you what it is you may and may not do. Without keeping up on all the court cases, you can know your state and federal code by heart and still commit criminal acts becuase you do not keep up to date on legal decisions.

Well, there you go. We elect lawyers to make the law, lawyers become judges who create more law, and lawyers get paid by us as defendants, and again when our taxes pay for the government lawyers. Is it any wonder that they've crafted a system guaranteed to keep them employed forevermore?
 
Wal Mart

Putting his hand on the gun is most positively not missing the point. There are often many pieces of evidence which, when combined, create an articulable suspicion which leads to probable cause for arrest. There are circumstances where the things first seen are only probable cause to investigate further, and they are only needed as a basis to look closer.
Before anyone thinks I am in favor of arresting someone for carrying ln a lawful manner...I am not. I firmly support oversight of anyone who has powers of arrest. I am diametrically opposed to living in any sort of big brother society. My only concern in this thread is to illustrate that even well-trained and well-meaning Officers may not know the ins and outs of every law. If society expected them to know all then the probable cause hearings and grand juries could be disposed of since all arrests would be then be scrutinized when made.
I would be the most worthless and despicable traitor to a field which I have invested 35 years of my life in if I fail to explain that, while bad officers are out in the world, they are the exceptions and not the rules for police work in Georgia.
 
Speculating on "hand-on-the-grip" is really unecessary. This took place in the electronics department of a WalMart: it was all filmed. We'll never see the tape, though, since he won't be charged.
 
I envy those who can walk into Walmart and buy ammo...

Sadly, the news in California and regarding Walmart is worsening... They have very quietly been removing ALL ammunition from their shelves. Mostly in the more mretropolitan area stores, but eventually I am pretty sure they will remove it completely within Calfornia.

I just visited the Antioch, CA Walmart store and they finally gave in tot he pressure and there is no longer any ammunition of any sort.

-- TenRingTAZ
 
Putting his hand on the gun is most positively not missing the point. There are often many pieces of evidence which, when combined, create an articulable suspicion which leads to probable cause for arrest. There are circumstances where the things first seen are only probable cause to investigate further, and they are only needed as a basis to look closer.
Click to expand...


In other words, "Stupid should be painful."
 
Please consider that perhaps a person putting their hand on the grip of their gun when approached by law enforcement, assuming that person is not justified in doing so, that such a person should be charged with something relating to putting his hand on the grip of his gun, and not something that attempts to declare WalMart a public gathering. It most emphatically is not.

I expected this charge to go away, but, as of today, I have not received confirmation of this. The solicitor general's office is unwilling to confirm what is public record and available to anybody wishing to go to the courthouse and look. I do not have time to go to the courthouse and look to see whether an indictment or accusation was filed . . . :fire:
 
Wal Mart

CeeTee...
"Stupid" certainly always has consequences. And it should. Stupid sometimes leads to arrests and to convictions...And that is painful. The Bible metions that there are "two kinds of law". The spirit of the law, which gives life. The letter of the law, which brings death.
One reason I think "Stupid should be painful", I guess, is that people doing stupid things hurt those of us who carry leagally and quietly, to protect ourselves and others. Every time a person carrying does a stupid human trick it sets the rest of us back a long way.
I absolutely don't agree with the Police actions in this, but what would they have had to go after if that person had stayed "concealed" and didn't have to show everybody what a big boy he was to carry a gun. Concealed MEANS Concealed.
 
aryfrosty,

You may not realize it but a Georgia Firearms License is not a concealed carry permit. It is a license to carry a firearm. Openly OR concealed.

Your comments on concealing a firearm not germaine in Georgia. The individual in question, as has been reported, HAD a GFL so he was legal to carry off his property (home or business) and out of his car.

The 'Public Gathering' is the major point of this and many, many other discussions.
 
Wal Mart

Wiley...Actually the term in Georgia is "Pistol Toter's Permit". I will say I'm guilty of not being current, but after serving over 25 years as a cop in Georgia I have dealt with carrying issues many times. I never made a case that stunk like the one where the gentleman was cased in Wal*Mart, but I stand by my remarks. I don't hold that it is any less than legal to carry openly...As a suggestion to avoid getting into a bad situation I say that "Concealed" IS just that. Cop or civilian...there are times when being legal doesn't mean you're right. If I'm in Wal*Mart or the 7-11 I don't want the danger of having the bad guys who come in to rob or kill seeing me armed and getting me out of the way first. I prefer concealed carry so that the bad guys....worst case...will start yelling and trying to do bad things and giving me a spilt second or three to do what I need to do.
 
Pistol toter's permit? The only time I have seen that reference is in a very old judicial opinion with deeply racist overtones.

I can assure you that it is called a firearms license and has been in this decade, the last, and the one before that. In fact, that is the name on the license in my hand. It is also the name in the statute, OCGA 16-11-129, that authorizes issuance of such licenses.

It may be legal, but it is wrong(?) to carry openly?

I suppose it is morally wrong to exercise your freedom of speech openly, too?

:neener:

Odd position.
 
Wal Mart

The name Pistol Toter's Permit is not racist. I guess it is an old term. My career began in the year 1971 so I suppose some of those older terms stuck. Point is that it's the same permit as when it was commonly known as a Pistol Toter's Permit, except now the state agrees that it allows open and concealed carry. Heck if you want to cry wolf I can tell you that I find your allusion to racist overtones to be racist in and of itself.
You tell me if it's wrong to carry openly. It's not illegal, but you are winding your way toward shouting "fire" in a crowded building. You have a freedom to yell it...But, should you exercise that freedom unless there's a need to do so?
It's not morally wrong to carry openly. It's not morally wrong to exercise any freedom. My concern is the application of common sense. If you carry openly do you want someone to see you surreptitiously slipping your handgun under your shirt or jacket. At least some of those who hate guns wouldn't have a second thought if they saw someone carrying in a holster. Sneaking it in under your clothing is one of the things which bothers me about this guy. The other is putting his mitt on the gun when he saw the police. I am not going to waste my time and efforts standing up for someone who acts dumb. I do, and will continue to, stand up for our rights to carry firearms and own them and use them. I will work hard to stop excessive applications of murky gun laws by any officer any time and any place. We are not going to win this war for our rights if we jump up and down and scream foul when someone gets his tail in a crack doing the wrong thing.
 
I did not claim that you were racist.

I did not say that the term itself was racist.

I said that the only time I had seen the term used was in an old case with racist overtones.

I can cite it for you if you wish, and you can decide for yourself.

Those are the facts.

You must have been a police officer in Georgia a long, long time ago. Times are a changing, and there is absolutely no reason for an officer to question open carry today.
 
aryfrosty, as to your statement "My concern is the application of common sense. If you carry openly do you want someone to see you surreptitiously slipping your handgun under your shirt or jacket."

I agree 100%.


Just wanted to be fair. :)
 
Wal Mart

I completely agree with you that no officer has a basis for questioning open carry. Absolutely. Beyond question.
My concern is the dingaling who gets out at the corner Stop n Rob and who reaches back in the vehicle and picks up a handgun and slips it under his shirt or jacket.
I admitted to you all that I was not current on Georgia codes. I began in 1971 and retired in 1996.
In today's world I'm a supervisor in a 911 call center in New England. You would be astounded to hear some of the complaints handled every day regarding firearms... Many of them the, "I saw him hide it under his shirt" variety. I still hold the line for common sense. Conceal it or carry it openly. But carry it and use it, if you have to, with a good sized dollop of common sense. I've been carrying here with a CCP for about 6 years. I carry "enough" gun to do the job. It isn't small. Not one time have I ever sent the neighbors climbin' the rafters or had the police come up and challenge me for my permit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Relax ND resrictions to CCW permit!
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Nickotym
N
N
  • Locked
North Dakotans: CCW changes in upcoming legislature
Replies
19
Views
879
Nickotym
N
N
  • Locked
North Dakotans: Relax Carry Restrictions
Replies
3
Views
403
Nickotym
N
H
  • Locked
"Public Gatherings" CCW off limits in GA?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Mike J
M
B
  • Locked
Attention Albuquerque, NM residents who frequent Wal-Mart
Replies
21
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top