This is a discussion on Another GA OC incident within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have no idea about Georgia law since I am in Nevada. If it is a lawful requirement to show ID in GA then Obstruction ...
I have no idea about Georgia law since I am in Nevada. If it is a lawful requirement to show ID in GA then Obstruction would be a correct charge on the Prima Facia evidence in the report.
If he was asked to leave because of a "no weapons rule" and failed to leave that would be Trespassing, a further refusal of ID would also be obstruction.
I don't think that there is reasonable suspicion of a crime when a firearm is carried openly generally out in society. To just ask who you are because you have a lawfully carried firearm is BS. This changes on private property however.
Ah, a lively debate. I guess we'll see who comes out on top when the case is decided in court. Nite all.
It is for this reason, that I feel that a truly concealed weapon that attracts no attention, is the best way to go all around. I am sure I am gona get attacked by the anti-police, but as a carrier (IWB or Smart Carry), I do not want to give the dissenters anymore ammunition than I have too. If we truly concealed, must issues woud never be brought to the attention of the general public.
There is more to this story than is being told. We are only hearing one side. This guy took long enough to walk back to his car, that, a 911 call was placed, a dispatcher sent a car, that patrol car drove to the scene, and was able to locate the guy in the parking lot, still open-carryiing? Come on, no one takes that long to go back to their car to disarm. This guy was either arguing with security while the call was placed, or purposely "slowly wandering taking his sweet time" returning to his vehicle just to prove a point. Either of which are perfectly good grounds for a trespassing charge. If this guy was actually walking to his vehicle at regular speed to honestly disarm, there is no way a responding officer would have found him still armed and walking. This is half the story, of course the side of the story this guy wants told.
Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
could this have been avoided if weapon was Concealed? Not trying to start something just wondering if the guy is rethinking OC now. Sometimes I m just Paranoid but I believe this responsibility makes me think a litlle more.
Why Would A Preacher ever need a Gun? Its Not for the Sheep , its for the Wolves!
Springfield Armory Service XD 40
Taurus PT 1911 45 acp Taurus PT 101, PT 92
Ruger 22/45 Ruger P95 9mm, Ruger SR9
Kahr CW 40, Heritage 22, Rossi 38 special
"Some people just prefer to not lead their lives running scared."
Complying with a law dog's request is running scared? Please explain that process, and while you are at,
please address the statute that allows no identification upon request due to OC as I asked you to------ You do have the cite on the specific statute to back up your statement don't you?
If you are going to make statements as though they are facts here, lets cite the actual law on it so everyone understands it's a fact and not just more subjective uneducated opinion.
Educate us that your statement is true, then I and others may hold more weight with your statements in the future.
here you GA code weapons related, find where you have to give a license without any probable cause of a crime being committed
it has breif descriptions of each code section off to the side
he was not charged with trespass, he was charged with obstruction of justice, for not helping them investigate. you dont have to incriminate yourself, a gun is not a reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause.
Correct he wasn't charged with trespass. You only have to identify yourself if your loitering or prowling, he was not loitering or prowling that code section doesn't apply.
If you look on the police report they had to make sure he wasnt a felon. They had no reason to believe he was a felon!!
"So then the police are just allowed to make up the rules on the spot? No, absent a statute specifying how one must identify oneself then there is no requirement to do so."
No, actually absent specificity in the law/statute, they can ask for any identification that satisfies their need to verify who they are talking to.
"These people stand up for their rights therefore they protect our's."
First, these people are not standing up for my rights, I stand up for my rights. I wouldn't want this one and his brother standing up for me for anything based on what I've seen here from the one.
"And just WHO has been appointed to define "loose cannon"?"
Loose cannon is an opinion, one that seems to fit based on the facts in evidence so far.
Your post #72 is spot on, I've gotten the same from this as you have. He's not the innocent poster child for open carry who just turned around and went back to his car as is being professed here.
"here you GA code weapons related, find where you have to give a license without any probable cause of a crime being comitted"
I've already state there is no specificity in the statute, therefore the full weight of the decision of what identification is necessary falls on the law officer. That sir is what is called discretionary law based on the totality of the circumstances.
"here you GA code weapons related, find where you have to give a license without any probable cause of a crime being comitted "
I've not made that claim. See above.
"Correct he wasn't charged with trespass. You only have to identify yourself if your loitering or prowling, he was not loitering or prowling that code section doesn't apply."
That's not the way the statute reads-- it says if you don't identify yourself you may be charged with loitering or trespass. Your interpretation of the law, and apparently your brothers, by his actions is somewhat lacking.
I asked you previously, and I'll ask you again for answers to the questions I posed previously. You seem to have either inadvertently missed them or have side stepped them intentionally. Your answering or not answering them now will surely give us the answer here.