Another GA OC incident - Page 11

Another GA OC incident

This is a discussion on Another GA OC incident within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Jaystekan P.S. Georgia has a Public Gathering clause in their carry aw. A mall could very easily be interpreted as a place ...

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 298
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Another GA OC incident

  1. #151
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaystekan View Post
    P.S. Georgia has a Public Gathering clause in their carry aw. A mall could very easily be interpreted as a place of public gathering, which in the state of Georgia, would result in misdemeanor charges. This is one of those clauses that are worded vaguely on purpose and can be interpreted by law enforcement, to pretty much cover anything they choose to apply it to.
    I agree some are leaning way to far on the hypothetical area. I have dealt with many LEO's and have had no problem in Georgia. Of course I carry concealed and I notify officers when I am carrying. As for the mall being a public gathering, the Georgia Attorney General has already released his opinion to the contrary. A "public gathering" is when people congregate for a specific purpose such as sporting events, political events, or religious events. It is still vague though and malls are privately owned so they can post no firearms signs.
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln


  2. #152
    Member Array Jaystekan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    492
    Well, I reread the police statements, may I suggest, next time you post something like that, you may want to delete out the personal information such as name and address, even if it is technically public record, I would delete the address and info like that, but your choice.

    Anyway the officer specifically stated that he was asking for identification in the process of an investigation of a 911 call. Unlike your cited prior cases, this was not an anonymous 911 call. Second, you keep stating that the mall parking lot is public, yet in the report, he was not given a ticket for no insurance because he was on PRIVATE PROPERTY, so which is it, public or private, you can't have it both ways. It seems to me that in this case the police were more than fair. In fact, I think they were overly generous in how they dealt with this individual.


    I would have loved to see the argument:
    But officer I am on public property and can open carry in the parking lot, and don't need to show id.
    Ok, then I will give you a ticket for no insurance.
    But officer, this is private property.
    Ok, then why are you carrying and refusing to show id.
    and on and on....
    Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

  3. #153
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaystekan View Post
    I really gotta stop responding to this thread. It's like a train wreck. I don't want to watch or contribute anymore, but I just can't take my eyes away from it.
    I have never seen a point of view so thoroughly refuted than someone who defends the obstruction of a police investigation. The childish actions of a few bad apples reflect on all of us who are trying to defend our families. Those who carry simply to make a point or because they can are abusing the rights we so dearly cherish and protect.

    It is this type of obnoxious behavior that forces me to support explicit laws requiring providing identification if requested. None of these open carry acting out displays would be an issue if the people would simply cooperate with authorties.

    Of course, the 'papers please' argument fails completely when one realizes that the historical context was to discriminate against classes of people. There is no problem at all with requiring law abiding citizens to identify themselves in a free society.

  4. #154
    Senior Member Array Al Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Mason, MI, USA
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
    The War on Guns: Where's the Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime?

    Friday, December 19, 2008
    Where's the Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime?
    From Ed Stone:

    David,

    Please read this police report about an arrest of a person openly carrying a pistol for obstruction for refusing to identify himself and tell me what reasonable suspicion of a crime existing to detain this man and force him to identify himself.

    This is not an incident I have previously reported to you, as it just happened. This is the same jurisdiction I wrote this letter and with which we have had other issues. Think they have it out for our members?

    http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f4...IMG_0001-1.jpg

    http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f4/rmodel65/IMG-6.jpg

    http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f4...IMG_0002-1.jpg

    What is in the water down there?

    ED
    I'm afraid, based on the police report, he's in deep do-do. He refused to show his GFL, when a sworn officer asked to see it. He violated Georgia law.

  5. #155
    VIP Member Array cvhoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,046
    I don't really have a dog in this hunt as I'm not from Georgia and have only been through there twice in my life, BUT -- the guy who is the subject of this thread is a twit!!

    Let's see if I understand this. Georgia requires you to have a license to open carry but a police officer can't require you to show the license when you are observed carrying? That makes as much sense as being stopped at a sobriety check point and refusing to show your driver's license when you are behind the wheel driving. (And I don't care that there's no Constitutional right to drive, it's still a licensed activity just like carrying a gun.)

    We constantly remind people that as licensed gun owners, we represent some of the most law-abiding, responsible members of society and then this guy comes along and because his ego is bigger than his brain, we get knocked back 5 steps. This is just the kind of nonsense that the Brady Bunch loves to get hold of for their propaganda campaigns.

    As law abiding gun owners, we need to project the best image possible if we wish to keep our firearms rights. While the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, don't forget that another part of the Constitution is Article 5. If we convince 2/3 of the population that we're a bunch of nut jobs running around with guns, we could easily see the 2nd become a note in the history books. We have to be ambassadors for our rights as well as defenders of our rights. Don't run away from a fight, just pick the right fights.

    Hoss
    Sig 239 SAS 40 S&W / Sig 239 9mm / Kahr PM-9 / Walther PPS .40 / Sig P-245 / Ruger LCP
    Beretta Tomcat / Walther PPK / BDA 380 / Taurus 85 / Kel-Tec PF-9 / Am. Derringer 357

    NRA Life Member
    My Web Site

  6. #156
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The childish actions of a few bad apples reflect on all of us who are trying to defend our families. Those who carry simply to make a point or because they can are abusing the rights we so dearly cherish and protect.
    Quote Originally Posted by cvhoss View Post
    As law abiding gun owners, we need to project the best image possible if we wish to keep our firearms rights. While the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, don't forget that another part of the Constitution is Article 5. If we convince 2/3 of the population that we're a bunch of nut jobs running around with guns, we could easily see the 2nd become a note in the history books. We have to be ambassadors for our rights as well as defenders of our rights. Don't run away from a fight, just pick the right fights.
    Amen! I state this on this thread and many others until most of you are probably sick of it! As Hoss has implied, we may very well be our own worst enemy when it comes to 2A rights.

    It is this type of obnoxious behavior that forces me to support explicit laws requiring providing identification if requested. None of these open carry acting out displays would be an issue if the people would simply cooperate with authorties.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaystekan View Post
    Well, I reread the police statements, may I suggest, next time you post something like that, you may want to delete out the personal information such as name and address, even if it is technically public record, I would delete the address and info like that, but your choice.

    Anyway the officer specifically stated that he was asking for identification in the process of an investigation of a 911 call. Unlike your cited prior cases, this was not an anonymous 911 call. Second, you keep stating that the mall parking lot is public, yet in the report, he was not given a ticket for no insurance because he was on PRIVATE PROPERTY, so which is it, public or private, you can't have it both ways. It seems to me that in this case the police were more than fair. In fact, I think they were overly generous in how they dealt with this individual.


    I would have loved to see the argument:
    But officer I am on public property and can open carry in the parking lot, and don't need to show id.
    Ok, then I will give you a ticket for no insurance.
    But officer, this is private property.
    Ok, then why are you carrying and refusing to show id.
    and on and on....









    it is private but it is a "public place"

    Public Place - Any place where the conduct involved may reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actor's family or household. (16-1-3 as used anywhere in Chapter 16)
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  8. #158
    Member Array Jaystekan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
    it is private but it is a "public place"

    Public Place - Any place where the conduct involved may reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than members of the actor's family or household. (16-1-3 as used anywhere in Chapter 16)
    You are confusing "public place" with "public property". My front lawn is a "public place", but it is my property, and therefore, my rules. A mall parking lot, is private property, therefore, the mall rules. Simply because you can drive into a parking lot and walk around without permission, does not make it public property. Yes your definition of public place is correct, but it is PRIVATE PROPERTY. There is no 2nd amendment protection on private property, whether in public view or not.
    Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

  9. #159
    Senior Member Array Al Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Mason, MI, USA
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    It is this type of obnoxious behavior that forces me to support explicit laws requiring providing identification if requested. None of these open carry acting out displays would be an issue if the people would simply cooperate with authorties.

    Of course, the 'papers please' argument fails completely when one realizes that the historical context was to discriminate against classes of people. There is no problem at all with requiring law abiding citizens to identify themselves in a free society.
    I can see it all now. "Kommittee for State Security, your papers please, Comrade Citizen."

    For certain, the Soviet Union had no problem with requiring ALL citizens to provide ID upon "request" no matter what.

    Next thing you know, people are going to want check points at the state borders.

  10. #160
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaystekan View Post
    You are confusing "public place" with "public property". My front lawn is a "public place", but it is my property, and therefore, my rules. A mall parking lot, is private property, therefore, the mall rules. Simply because you can drive into a parking lot and walk around without permission, does not make it public property. Yes your definition of public place is correct, but it is PRIVATE PROPERTY. There is no 2nd amendment protection on private property, whether in public view or not.


    yes it is private, but he was never asked to leave(only to put the gun away) he was complying.

    i havent confused anything, you can not be forcibly detained without something that proves your have, are about to or are in the process of committing a crime. he was doing nothing illegal.
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  11. #161
    Senior Member Array Al Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Mason, MI, USA
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
    yes it is private, but he was never asked to leave(only to put the gun away) he was complying.

    i havent confused anything, you can not be forcibly detained without something that proves your have, are about to or are in the process of committing a crime. he was doing nothing illegal.
    I will agree with you, he did nothing illegal until he refused to show his GFL to a person who identified himself as a LEO. At that point, based on Georgia law, he was in violation.

  12. #162
    VIP Member Array cvhoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Lowe View Post
    I can see it all now. "Kommittee for State Security, your papers please, Comrade Citizen."

    For certain, the Soviet Union had no problem with requiring ALL citizens to provide ID upon "request" no matter what.

    Next thing you know, people are going to want check points at the state borders.
    Apples and Oranges. Absolutely no connection between the two. I don't need a license to walk down the sidewalk or through a parking lot (usually defined as private property with public access). I do need a license to carry a firearm. If Georgia requires a license to openly carry a loaded handgun, then a police officer should have a right, and an obligation, to ask that you show that license.

    Hoss
    Sig 239 SAS 40 S&W / Sig 239 9mm / Kahr PM-9 / Walther PPS .40 / Sig P-245 / Ruger LCP
    Beretta Tomcat / Walther PPK / BDA 380 / Taurus 85 / Kel-Tec PF-9 / Am. Derringer 357

    NRA Life Member
    My Web Site

  13. #163
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Lowe View Post
    I will agree with you, he did nothing illegal until he refused to show his GFL to a person who identified himself as a LEO. At that point, based on Georgia law, he was in violation.



    again there is no GA that requires compulsory production of a GFL, no law was broken ever
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  14. #164
    Member Array Jaystekan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    492
    I am sorry I still think there is more to this story.

    For 2 off duty police officers to feel that this situation warranted the need to place a 911 call, there has got to be more to this.
    Seeing as how we are only getting half the story, and there is so obviously some other factor contributing to this, I am done here.

    The unfortunate thing about this entire incident, is that, every single person that witnessed this situation, police, innocent bystanders, anyone and everyone who had the unfortunate experience of seeing this unfold, all now have a lesser view of gun owners. This entire incident was not about sticking up for your rights(private property is no place to try advance your personal views), it was not about the letter of the law, it was not about common courtesy towards others, it was simply about who blinks first, him or the police. Two weeks before Christmas, at a crowded mall, tensions are already high, crime is usually high at the mall this time of year, and this guy wants to prove a point THAT DAY?

    I am willing to bet that this is not the first time this individual has had a run-in like this with the law, probably this very same reason, which may be one of the main factors as to why he was charged. Police give warnings all the time, and say "If I see you back here I am gonna charge you next time." Don't even try to say this was his first time in the mall, that is simply not believable. Even the police report stated that the name of this guy is known around town, and if it's his town, there is simply no way to believe that he hasn't been to the mall before. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing!!!

    Poeple like this make the entire self defense movement take a step backwards.

    I am beyond the point of whether this was legal or justified or not. It makes no difference to me. What does matter to me is that there are now 50 civilians and at least 4 officers who now are a little less sympathetic towards gunowners. There are at least 50 civilians who saw this who are now saying to themselves, this guy is the reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns.

    I am done with this, it's an embarrassment to the gun community.
    Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

  15. #165
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Lowe View Post
    I can see it all now. "Kommittee for State Security, your papers please, Comrade Citizen."

    For certain, the Soviet Union had no problem with requiring ALL citizens to provide ID upon "request" no matter what.
    From a simple law enforcement request, after they were called, to comparisons to Soviet Union. No wonder our image is one of paranoia. For the sake of God, just show the ID and move on!


Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Incident at 7/11
    By wolfshead in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2011, 12:26 AM
  2. Incident at the 7-11
    By FloridaShooter in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 10th, 2007, 11:33 AM
  3. Dog Incident
    By harley91 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 17th, 2007, 06:34 PM
  4. Just Had an Incident
    By gordo23 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: September 27th, 2006, 10:23 AM

Search tags for this page

failure to produce id georgia

,

ga obstruction for failure to produce id

,

obstructing or hindering leo (misd) statute 16-10-24(a)

,

oc show id georgia

Click on a term to search for related topics.