[gizmo5]

From all the info I have gathered, and from all the laws I have read I believe that Military residing in GA have all the same carry abilities as an officer in GA. One piece of info I ran across was this.
http://www.ganet.org/ago/read.cgi?searc ... val=U97-13
I myself am Active Duty, and would like any info from other Active duty individuals here in GA that have looked into this topic. I mean after all.... I swore in to defend a country/world, while a peace officer swore in to defend a city/county.... 8) I think I should have ZERO restrictions as to where I carry my pistol.

 

[gizmo5]

I did my homework

I read the fine print and....

According to 16-11-130 ALL PERSONS IN MILITARY SERVICE residing in GA have Exemptions from Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-128. Public gatherings, alcohol serving places and schools are all allowed! Hell, we don’t even need a license! I already have mine so i guess I will be covered when I travel outside GA where I’m allowed to carry. I’m so happy, now I can at least go to a restaurant to have dinner with my wife and not worry if they serve alcohol. I OC now and that was going to be a problem until now. YESSSSSS!!!!!! :lol: 8) :twisted:

 

[S&W 40]

There are things you need to look at,

As many problems that we have with LEO and the general public, how many of them do know this part of the law.

Also the last time I read it I believe it said in performing duties, I could be wrong i'll re-read again and again...

 

[legacy38]

I sincerely hope that I am wrong on this one, but my understanding was that the military exemption was for troops actually performing duty. Once again, I really hope that I am wrong on this one.

 

[legacy38]

There are other statues in this state that military people are not exempt from but the police are. Guard lines, public transportation has been debated, school zones has been debated for off duty carry, and others.

The federal law passed a few years ago took care of most of those debates.

 

[goldshellback]

Active Duty Military personnel.....

.........STATIONED in GA are exempt from having to obtain a GFL and can carry conceled while off duty. This is found somewhere in GA code between 16-11-127 and 16-11-130....went looking but couldn't find where it stated that this morning but I have read it and when I do find it I'll post the link. GA is the only state I'm aware of that allows this.

This concerns conceled carry only and does NOT give Active Duty personnel the same rights as LEO's.

 

[ptsmith24]

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-124

This part shall not apply to:

...

(2) A member of the National Guard or of the armed forces of the United States to wit: the army, navy, marine corps, air force, or coast guard who, while serving therein, possesses such firearm in the line of duty;

...

I'm not sure what "this part" refers to.

 

[ICP_Juggalo]

It means code sections 16-11-121 - 16-11-125.

In particular 16-11-125, which means when, not if, but when you get arressted for violating that part, it is up to you to provide proof in court that you are exempt.

BTW code sections 16-11-121 - 16-11-125 deal with the possession of NFA weapons NOT concealed carry or places off limits.

 

[legacy38]

There are other statues in this state that military people are not exempt from but the police are. Guard lines, public transportation has been debated, school zones has been debated for off duty carry, and others.

The federal law passed a few years ago took care of most of those debates.

I do not know what you are talking about, please explain. The federal law(that I think you are talking about) allows current and retired LEOs more options but I don't think anything has changed for military.

I misread your post. I read it as there being confusion as to there being confusion about off duty officers and the restricted areas.

 

[legacy38]

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-124

This part shall not apply to:

...

(2) A member of the National Guard or of the armed forces of the United States to wit: the army, navy, marine corps, air force, or coast guard who, while serving therein, possesses such firearm in the line of duty;

...

I'm not sure what "this part" refers to.

The part of the code section quoted above raises questions. I'm still not sure military is blanketly covered under the law to CCW.

 

[ber950]

The part of the code section quoted above raises questions. I'm still not sure military is blanketly covered under the law to CCW.

It doesn't confuse the AG
UNOFFICIAL OPINION U97-13
Thus, it is my unofficial opinion that active duty military personnel are exempt under Georgia law from the requirement for a firearms permit.

 

[legacy38]

The part of the code section quoted above raises questions. I'm still not sure military is blanketly covered under the law to CCW.

It doesn't confuse the AG
UNOFFICIAL OPINION U97-13
Thus, it is my unofficial opinion that active duty military personnel are exempt under Georgia law from the requirement for a firearms permit.

The AG opinions don't have any force of law.

 

[ber950]

The AG opinions don't have any force of law.

No but it would have to be dealt with in any attempt to prosecute.

The DA would either drop the charges or pass them to the Solicitor who doesn't like getting dumped on.

The Judge would most likely dismiss the charges.

The jury instructions would probably include the AG opinion.

The appeals court would look at the AG opinion.

Do you really think a prosecution would stand. :?: or do you think the poor cop on the street who wasn't trained on this will just get left twisting in the breeze :?:

 

[legacy38]

The AG opinions don't have any force of law.

No but it would have to be dealt with in any attempt to prosecute.

The DA would either drop the charges or pass them to the Solicitor who doesn't like getting dumped on.

The Judge would most likely dismiss the charges.

The jury instructions would probably include the AG opinion.

The appeals court would look at the AG opinion.

Do you really think a prosecution would stand. :?: or do you think the poor cop on the street who wasn't trained on this will just get left twisting in the breeze :?:

I think that you are giving an AG opinion too much credit when compared to a political animal like a DA.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The statutes are here on this page. Yellow tab, above, "Gun Laws." Then select "Weapons Related Georgia Code."

O.C.G.A. 16-11-130 exempts LEOs and others "if such persons are employed in the offices listed below."
One such office is in (a)(3) "Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States."

Nothing about active duty, state or federal, or actually performing duties at the time.

If it is "duties at the time," then the same thing applies to LEO.

As for "active duty" being used in the AG opinion, that was the question he was asked, so he is not limiting it to active duty, either.

If you have not perused the yellow buttons, above, you are missing a LOT of good stuff. There is more here than just a discussion forum.

 

[ber950]

I think that you are giving an AG opinion too much credit when compared to a political animal like a DA.

Trust me from past experiance I don't give DA's credit for much, but most don't want to pull a Nifog and look like an idiot. They would rather make an officer look like an idiot.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The statutes are here on this page. Yellow tab, above, "Gun Laws." Then select "Weapons Related Georgia Code."

O.C.G.A. 16-11-130 exempts LEOs and others "if such persons are employed in the offices listed below."
One such office is in (a)(3) "Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States."

Nothing about active duty, state or federal, or actually performing duties at the time.

If it is "duties at the time," then the same thing applies to LEO.

As for "active duty" being used in the AG opinion, that was the question he was asked, so he is not limiting it to active duty, either.

If you have not perused the yellow buttons, above, you are missing a LOT of good stuff. There is more here than just a discussion forum.

Guys, we do not need an AG opinion. Read the statute. It is the same as if the person were an LEO. And there are more people in that list.

In 2005, they tried (sneaky, sneaky) to add "elected officials" (yeah, themselves) to that list. I put a lot of effort into stopping that, and so did several people that post here.

 

[S&W 40]

I just read 130 again and I did miss quote about the military with the "duty". I was also thinking about the line after talking about contractors.

But I will still stand with the part I said about how many LEO do you really think know about this. True go to court and prove that this sections does apply and you should be good but for less than $50 you can also have a GFL and be legal in many places. This would be much less expensive than court.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

But I will still stand with the part I said about how many LEO do you really think know about this. True go to court and prove that this sections does apply and you should be good but for less than $50 you can also have a GFL and be legal in many places. This would be much less expensive than court.

Or you can photocopy section 130 for $0.10, buy a highlighter in bright yellow for $0.49, and just put that in the face of any officer who challenges you. Carry two copies in case you have to put another one in the face of the backup guy. Maybe a third for the supervisor.



I got a license even when I was an LEO! :wink: But it was only because I think LEOs should have to get the license and follow the same laws as everybody else. They are either good laws or they are not.

 

[legacy38]

This holds absolutely no force of law, but one of coworkers that is ex-military (Chief Warrant Officer) believes/interprets the word "service" to mean actually on duty and performing an official function. Once again, no force of law here; just an opinion.

I left a message for a magistrate judge that I know seeking clarification on this issue.