Can I pack CC while driving, or can only my car?

12217 Views 96 Replies 18 Participants Last post by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 5, 2007

RudeBoy

Discussion Starter · Mar 1, 2006

I've read other gun boards about Ohio, etc, which have strange cc laws which change when one enters his vehicle. I've read the GA laws a dozen times just to be safe, but with such emphasis on "the glove box or console" in several posts, and that one poor fella who got stopped at a roadblock, I just want to make sure.

I carry concealed in a bellyband and don't bother to place gun on seat or in console or in glovebox when I enter my vehicle and begin driving. Am I allowed to keep the iron where it is while driving?

I just started packing recently, so I'm new to the game and still learning the ropes....

By the way, I'm new here--glad to meet ya.

81 - 97 of 97 Posts

RIPNITZ

· #81 · Jan 5, 2007

WOW!! :shock: I really cannot believe all the response's that I've gotten so quickly!!! I love this site! And, MP, I thank you as well for the information given! That clears things up a good bit there, although considering the crime rate around town, I dont want to be without some type of weapon. Although I do wear a size 17 shoe, and that should work just fine on anyone. LOL

But much thanks to all replies!!!

Malum Prohibitum

· #82 · Jan 5, 2007

ICP_Juggalo said:
This Code section shall not forbid any person who is not among those enumerated as ineligible for a license under Code Section 16-11-129 from transporting a loaded firearm in any private passenger motor vehicle in an open manner and fully exposed to view or in the glove compartment, console, or similar compartment of the vehicle; provided, however, that any person in possession of a valid permit issued pursuant to Code Section 16-11-129 may carry a handgun in any location in a motor vehicle.

It appears, from ordinary reading of the law, that a person under the age of 21 is prohibited from carrying a loaded firearm in their vehicle since they would be ineligible for a license under 16-11-129 because licenses are not issued to any person under 21.

It looks as if the same appears true for carrying an unloaded and cased firearm in the vehicle as well. I dunno Federal Law may triumph state law in that case since there is already a federal law on the books for carrying an unloaded firearm in a vehicle.

What is the charge?

126 is the concealed carry statute. It says (quoted above) "this code section shall not forbid" such and such for those who can get a license. What about those who cannot? Is there anything in this code section that "shall forbid?" Is there anything in any other code section?

Just my :2cents:

Malum Prohibitum

· #83 · Jan 5, 2007

That is assuming, of course, it is not concealed, which was the whole issue in this thread.

Fishing? Watch out for:

Army Corps of Eng'rs
State Parks
Wildlife Management Areas
Grizzlies

RIPNITZ

· #84 · Jan 5, 2007

And yes, my apologies for not stating this before. When I fish, the firearm is NOT holstered, yet it is open and fully exposed to view. I know this sounds wierd but I usually tie a rope from a small carabiner and hang it around the trigger guard. Unloaded of course.

ICP_Juggalo

· #85 · Jan 5, 2007

pardon me, I should have added the word concealed in my first sentence. How silly of me ](*,)

RIPNITZ

· #86 · Jan 5, 2007

Hey its ok ICP, were humans. And therefore we all make mistakes, except for Georgia lawmakers, they think their "PERFECT." @$$&%^&%$ lmao, well its just another day in Georgia :lol:

Malum Prohibitum

· #87 · Jan 5, 2007

RIPNITZ said:
Although I do wear a size 17 shoe . . .

:shock:

What they feedin' you kids down in Evans?

RIPNITZ

· #88 · Jan 5, 2007

MP, if your still around, maybe you can enlighten me a little about the whole "citizen's arrest" issue. I apologize for bringing this up in a different post but I honestly cant remember where I read it at.

I do carry cuffs in my fire gear bag because sometime we have patients that we must restrain due to mental issues, also known as an "Altered Mental Status" but is this implying that if givin a good reason a "citizen" can make a legal arrest? thanks

RIPNITZ

· #89 · Jan 5, 2007

Well MP, Im 6'4" roughly 210 pounds, in pretty good shape. I wore a size 15 shoe when I was 14 years old. Im just big, hence the old age look. oh well, Although I used to tell everyone I sniffed miracle grow as a kid, thats why im so tall and the big feet. :lol:

Malum Prohibitum

· #90 · Jan 5, 2007

RIPNITZ said:
MP, if your still around, maybe you can enlighten me a little about the whole "citizen's arrest" issue. I apologize for bringing this up in a different post but I honestly cant remember where I read it at. I do carry cuffs in my fire gear bag because sometime we have patients that we must restrain due to mental issues, also known as an "Altered Mental Status" but is this implying that if givin a good reason a "citizen" can make a legal arrest? thanks

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... 4969#14969

But don't be too eager. It is sure to get you sued, and, even though there is not much difference between the arrest powers of a police officer and someone who is not, there is another legal issue having nothing to do with powers of arrest that makes all the difference in the world:

Immunity

RIPNITZ

· #91 · Jan 5, 2007

Thanks for the response. I have never had to use the cuffs even when restraining patients, where as we normally use oversized tie wraps and occasionally ropes. I am not the type of person who is going to put my life in danger trying to make an arrest unless I see someone commiting a felony and if im not armed, i aint gettin close to em'. Thats just the way I view it. Although I did get a good kick out of the old lady in Police Academy "Citizens" I belive was the name of it. :lol: and btw, I just noticed before I typed all of this, the security guard post is where I saw it at. :shock: Thanks for bumping it back up so i'll stop going off topic here.

foshizzle

· #92 · Jan 5, 2007

But don't be too eager. It is sure to get you sued, and, even though there is not much difference between the arrest powers of a police officer and someone who is not, there is another legal issue having nothing to do with powers of arrest that makes all the difference in the world:

Immunity

Police can be sued for false arrest just as easily as anyone else. If I get arrested for open carrying at McDonalds with a valid GFL by a police officer, chances are I can sue for false arrest. I don't think that even police are protected from civil suits... even if they shoot someone and it's ruled a legit shoot according to departmental policy... they can still be sued in civil court and the dept will not represent them. They get outside insurance for protection from civil suits. At least that's what I understand from conversations with them.

I think they get preference with warrants though. It's not like I can take out a warrant on someone and see a judge an hour later like they can.

Malum Prohibitum

· #93 · Jan 5, 2007

foshizzle said:
Police can be sued for false arrest just as easily as anyone else.

Nonsense. At least not successfully. I would wager that I have defended more of these suits than anybody on here. You write "Immunity, immunity, immunity" all over a piece of paper and turn it in to the judge, and the judge writes A+ on it and throws out your case.

I have probably been personally sued as a police officer more than anybody on this site, too . . .

:lol:

Malum Prohibitum

· #94 · Jan 5, 2007

foshizzle said:
I don't think that even police are protected from civil suits... even if they shoot someone and it's ruled a legit shoot according to departmental policy... they can still be sued in civil court and the dept will not represent them. They get outside insurance for protection from civil suits. At least that's what I understand from conversations with them.

Ah, ha! Now I know why you have a misconception. :lol: How have they been so far on guiding you regarding concealed carry laws in Georgia?

foshizzle

· #95 · Jan 5, 2007

I have probably been personally sued as a police officer more than anybody on this site, too

I would further venture that in most cases where you have been sued as an officer that you could defend your actions since you probably used common sense and procedure in your arrests. I think that if I did a citizens arrest that I could defend my actions as well. I wouldn't be dumb enough to say "He looked suspiscious so I tackled him and initiated a citizens arrest".

There is no such thing as immunity for illegal actions. Shoot a guy in the back, write immunity, immunity, immunity on your piece of paper and it won't go far. Arrest me and charge me with a violation of a code you should reasonably be expected to know exactly what constitutes a violation... I don't see how you could get immunity. I also don't see how the judge would automatically be in your pocket. I bet I can afford a better lawyer than most police officers can if they had to pay out of their own pockets.

I dunno. Most of the suits you defended against were probably guilty people angry over things they probably knew were wrong. You ever get sued by someone who you arrested that you REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE.. and who had the financial resources to follow through with a lawsuit in civil court? Not some pissed off crackhead or wifebeater...

See less See more

Malum Prohibitum

· #96 · Jan 5, 2007

Officer roughly shoves handcuffed arrestee up against a cinder block wall face first with no justification. Arrestee is not resisting. Officer takes a piece of paper and writes "immunity, immunity, immunity" all over it and turns it in to the judge for grading. For purposes of such a piece of paper, the judge must assume that everything the arrestee says is true.

What is the outcome?

I am sure you can guess (or I would not be putting it up here).

You make a "citizen's arrest" and do the same thing. What is the result in your lawsuit?

Another difference. On the false arrest angle, since that seems to be your focus, the standards are simply not the same for you and a police officer.

You- the standard is you better turn out to be right (I am translating the caselaw into plain english).

Police officer - Just has to show some sort of vague reasonable cause under the circumstances. Do not mistake the standard for dismissal of the criminal case for the much lower standard that the police officer must meet to survive the subsequent civil lawsuit. Police officers are wrong all the time, but the courts do not want to punish them for it so much that officers are afraid to act when they suspect crime.

Without directing you to a bunch of cases I am not sure what else to tell you. The statutory "powers of arrest" are essentially the same (excluding warrants and traffic), but the difference lies in what happens in a subsequent civil lawsuit if it turns out you were wrong. It is a huge difference. There is also a huge difference in the amount of force a court will tolerate.

Do a search on here for the Coweta Tasering and look at what the 11th ciruit tolerated. Think they would do that for you?

Police officer case - the court says, oh, fast moving circumstances, split second decision, officer safety, de minimus force (like throwing a non-resisting suspect over a car hood or Tasering people for yelling), and we can't second guess them in the field. Oh, yeah, and immunity. And the rule on immunity is to get rid of the case as early as possible, as it is immunity from suit, not just immunity from trial.

Your case - Was he right? Did he have probable cause to arrest?

See less See more

Malum Prohibitum

· #97 · Jan 5, 2007

foshizzle said:
and who had the financial resources to follow through with a lawsuit in civil court? Not some pissed off crackhead or wifebeater...

One word: contingency fee.

81 - 97 of 97 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.