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; 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 ...

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 298
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Another GA OC incident

  1. #61
    Member Array gun papa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    36
    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.

    papa

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    From what has been used in defense by others to support their own idea of identifying oneself, the Ga. statute cited does not specify how one will identify himself. Brownie

    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.

  4. #63
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't undestand why these troublemakers simply don't show their ID. The incident would be over in seconds. Clearly they have nothing better to do with their time and waste other's time in the process.

    These people endanger our rights and give all gun owners a bad name.

    These people stand up for their rights therefore they protect our's.

  5. #64
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    [QUOTE=JAT40;950738][QUOTE=Rusty Bouquett;950733]
    Quote Originally Posted by JAT40 View Post
    Is it possible that because of conflicts like this more restrictions and less freedoms could result? Wouldn't want a backfire.

    In this fight with the anti-gunners, WISDOM trumps loose cannons!

    And just WHO has been appointed to define "loose cannon"?

  6. #65
    Member Array Rusty Bouquett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lake Wobegon
    Posts
    415
    Ah, a lively debate. I guess we'll see who comes out on top when the case is decided in court. Nite all.

  7. #66
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Bouquett View Post
    These people stand up for their rights therefore they protect our's.
    That may be true, but sometimes that statement just does not cut it. A simple request, had it been acknowledged, would have ended this topic. It just confounds me that people do not understand that CCW'ers have a bad image. ANY action, or lack there of, that can and will attract bad publicity will do so. It is sometimes in our best interest to do the right thing for the sake of our image. Come on guys, lets not attract any unwanted attention. In the long run, this will do more for our rights than most anything else we can do.

  8. #67
    Member Array ekillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Conroe, TX
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Bouquett View Post
    They were not charging him with loitering, they were charging him with trespass.
    They were charging him with trespass? The police report says nothing of trespass. That obviously wasn't the charge.

  9. #68
    Member Array concealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by gun papa View Post
    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.
    On the surface I agree with you. However, with members of my family in LE, I can say that there are many calls from citizens whenever they see someone with a gun. While you an I know that these calls come out of fear, none the less they must be answered. IF a call comes into dispatch, the officers must respond. At that point, it is their duty to answer the call (within the law) and deal with the situation and assure public safety.

    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.

  10. #69
    Member Array Jaystekan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    492
    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.

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array preachertim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    742
    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

  12. #71
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    "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.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  13. #72
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    "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.


    Brownie



    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
    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. #73
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by ekillian View Post
    They were charging him with trespass? The police report says nothing of trespass. That obviously wasn't the charge.


    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!!
    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

  15. #74
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    "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.

    Jaystekan,

    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.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

  16. #75
    Sponsor
    Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    3,644
    "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.

    Brownie
    The mind is the limiting factor

    Quick Kill Rifle and Pistol Instructor

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

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 1st, 2011, 11:26 PM
  2. Incident at the 7-11
    By FloridaShooter in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 10th, 2007, 10:33 AM
  3. Dog Incident
    By harley91 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: June 17th, 2007, 05:34 PM
  4. Just Had an Incident
    By gordo23 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: September 27th, 2006, 09:23 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.