[IPackinGA]

Alright just like alot of people I have been hearing conflicting storys about carring in my place of business. I was told by the lady when I got my licence I as an owner of a bar could carry. I recently talked to an investigater and she said no way, not if you serve alcohol. Where in the law does it say you can? I want to print it out and have it in my holster so I don't get hauled in by some punk cop that dosn't know the law.
Thanks,
IPackinGA

 

[GAGunOwner]

.

 

[GAGunOwner]

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... ght=#24421

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The law states that you need a license only outside of your car, home, or place of business. All that means is that there is no license requirement in your place of business. It says nothing about whether your place of business is off limits.

Let's assume, for example, that you work at the airport . . .

 

[Gunstar1]

I know it won't keep him from getting hauled off, but what about being the owner:

(d) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this Code section if a person notifies a law enforcement officer or other person employed to provide security for a public gathering of the presence of such item as soon as possible after learning of its presence and surrenders or secures such item as directed by the law enforcement officer or other person employed to provide security for a public gathering.

I would think as the owner and probably bouncer, that he would be that security person.

 

[jrm]

I agree with GS1. I think the owner of a bar can employ himself to provide security.

 

[gunsmoker]

Security?

Will the Georgia Board of Private Security and Detective Agencies license a person to do their own in-house security without the security "agency" having its own business license, insurance, etc? Can a person be licensed as an armed security guard without having to undergo all the training requirements? How would you get such training as an individual?

Although the statute on "carrying a pistol without a license" has an exception for one's own place of business, I don't see any such exception in 16-11-127, the "public gatherings" law. So if they charged you for carrying a deadly weapon at a place that served alcohol for consumption there, I don't think you can point to SOME OTHER code section and say you meet an exception to that other law, which ought to apply to this one also.

 

[jrm]

Gunsmoker, the affirmative defense that GS1 quoted is an exception to 127 (it is 127(d)). It does not say the person employed has to be a licensed security guard. Because this is a criminal statute, it should be construed strictly against the state. I think the bar owner can employ himself to provide security, and thus have an affirmative defense.

I still have a beef with this being an affirmative defense and not an element of the crime, but that's another thread.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Because this is a criminal statute, it should be construed strictly against the state.

Yeah, but because it is a "gun" statute, it falls under the gun exception. :wink:

 

[GAGunOwner]

.

 

[jrm]

Again, this statute must be construed strictly against the state.

I think a bar owner can hire himself to provide security, can tell himself that he has a gun, and follow his self's instructions on what to do with it (Self, put it in your holster).

If it makes more sense to include a third person, to avoid the fictional conversation that the bar owner has with himself, try this:

The bar owner hires a bar manager. The bar manager's responsibilities include bar security. The bar owner goes to the bar, sees the manager, and says, "Hey, I have my gun with me. What should I do with it?" The manager tells him to keep it holstered on his person.

How's that?

 

[gunsmoker]

Intent of the Legislature

If the legislature intended to allow managers and security people to CARRY THEIR OWN guns at a "public gathering" rather than just allow them to tell people who find themselves with guns at an unexpected public gathering that they can go return it to their vehicle in the parking lot, leave the premises with it, secure it, etc, then why didn't the legislature just say so plainly?

What you're saying, then, is that if we were to write a restatement of law on 127 (d), it would read "you can carry a deadly weapon at a public gathering if the owner/manager/security officer there gives you that permission personally, at that location." If that's what the legislature intended, then sure, obviously the manager can also carry a weapon himself.

I'm saying the restatement of the law would read, "don't carry guns to public gatherings, but if you do by accident, and if you immediately call this situation to the attention of management and follow their directions, you will not be prosecuted (though you could be banned from the property)."

 

[Taler]

It seems to me that JRM's point of view is pretty much the "property rights" argument being used against the parking lot bill, applied differently. And it's already codified.

 

[jrm]

Gunsmoker, I concede that your argument and interpretation of the statute are valid. But, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this criminal statute must be construed strictly against the state. Because the statute is ambiguous (you and I have reached different reasonable interpretations, so it is by definition ambiguous), the interpretation that supports innocence must prevail.

 

[Gunstar1]

I lean towards what happens at a gun show. It is plastered all over that it is a public gathering, yet as long as you have a zip tie on your firearm, it is ok to carry around. Public gathering does not say loaded or unloaded, just a firearm.

It also does not say a security person licensed under 43-38-10, like it does in other sections when talking about a GFL, that is licensed under 16-11-129.

 

[gunsmoker]

Security Guards Exempt

Well, although the Public Gatherings statute doesn't itself say that it has an exception for armed security guards, the security guard statute DOES. If one law says something is permitted and the other says that it is not, we would normally apply the law that was more recently passed, and conclude that it implicitly repealed the conflicting provisions of the older one. But if there is not a direct conflict, the rule to follow is that the more specific law controls over the generally-worded law.

In this case, the generally worded law is 16-11-127, by saying "don't carry guns at public gatherings."

The more specific law is 43-38-10 (f), which says a properly-licensed guard can carry where others cannot, and is exempt from the following statutes:

(1) Code Section 16-11-126, relating to carrying a concealed weapon;

(2) Code Section 16-11-127, relating to carrying deadly weapons at public gatherings;

(3) Code Section 16-11-128, relating to carrying a pistol without a license; and

(4) Code Section 16-11-129, relating to licenses to carry pistols and revolvers generally.

So I don't think it's valid to say that armed security guards can carry at public gatherings because they have permission from the manager of the property. They carry there by virtue of the legislature writing an exception for them into State law, and linking that exception to a special kind of license not found in 16-11-129.

The thing about gun shows is more on-point. But keep in mind that gun shows have involved people bringing guns to public gatherings for generations, long before the law was changed to incorporate the "tell the manager or security guy and follow his directions" provision. So for most of our lives, people have been carrying at gun shows simply out of universal recognition that the legislators were short-sighted when they wrote the public gatherings law and the law is too broadly-worded to literally be applied everywhere it possibly could.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: Security Guards Exempt

If one law says something is permitted and the other says that it is not, we would normally apply the law that was more recently passed, and conclude that it implicitly repealed the conflicting provisions of the older one.

Gunsmoker!

So, would you say that the exemptions in 127.1 are controlling over those in 130, even though 130 purports to controll over 126 through 128?

 

[tony218]

what if you were a locksmith and had a call to unlock a car
in the bar parking lot ?

 

[gunsmoker]

Malum's question

The answer to your question would depend on whether I was a judge or a defendant.

I'd like to take the position that, ALL of the exemptions found in 16-11-130 apply to all the Code sections that the statute itself says they apply to (which isn't near enough in my opinion), AND if there are any enumerated exemptions found in those particular statutes, they also apply. So if you fit an into an exemption under 16-11-127.1 by having written permission of the school principal to bring a WWI -era Mauser rifle as a demonstrative aid in a world history class, you're OK, and likewise if you're an off-duty cop and you carry your into the school to watch your high school kid's basketball game, you're also covered.

I'm not saying that line of reasoning would work, but I'd argue for it.

 

[mzmtg]

what if you were a locksmith and had a call to unlock a car
in the bar parking lot ?

http://georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=822