[Nemo]

IIRC someone around here had a criminal case on this issue rather recently. I think it got plead out too something to simple to risk trial. EG-- an offer the defendant was not willing to pass up.

Nemo

 

[jrm]

T

So, if we are confident of our interpretation of the law, maybe we should ask the DAs Office to have the AG weigh in on the matter.

I don't care that much what the AG thinks it means, especially the present AG. I'd rather ask a court what it means.

 

[jrm]

As I've said before, I think that the exception even applies to carrying in the school building *if and only if * going into the school building on foot is part of the standard procedure for picking up or dropping off students.

What's the basis for the IIF phrase? Seems as though you're reading words into the statute that are not there.

 

[UtiPossidetis]

As I've said before, I think that the exception even applies to carrying in the school building *if and only if * going into the school building on foot is part of the standard procedure for picking up or dropping off students.

Or is required for picking up or dropping off. For example, many schools have a "It's after X:XX am and you child is now late! You must come in and sign them in." sign outside the building. Most schools also make you come in and sign your child out in person if it is either early release or you are getting them from after-school.

 

[jrm]

Or is required for picking up or dropping off. For example, many schools have a "It's after X:XX am and you child is now late! You must come in and sign them in." sign outside the building. Most schools also make you come in and sign your child out in person if it is either early release or you are getting them from after-school.

Why does there have to be some special reason for going to the building?

 

[UtiPossidetis]

Why does there have to be some special reason for going to the building?

There does not. However, I believe it would strengthen any case if the school system required the parent to enter the building to either drop off or pick up their child and it was not a choice on their part.

 

[jrm]

There does not. However, I believe it would strengthen any case if the school system required the parent to enter the building to either drop off or pick up their child and it was not a choice on their part.

It would be an even stronger defense if the carrier were a cop, but isn't the outer edge of the envelope what we're really interested in?

 

[UtiPossidetis]

It would be an even stronger defense if the carrier were a cop, but isn't the outer edge of the envelope what we're really interested in?

Depends on the perspective, I suppose. From a pure 2A perspective - yes. From an individual defense perspective - no.

 

[Phil1979]

Let's say the school has no policy at all requiring you to come inside the building when picking up your child, regardless of any circumstance.

So you arrive for the purpose of picking up your child and don't see him. Whether or not your child is late coming out, you go inside the building to inquire about your child, or to just wait inside.

I'll have to agree with jrm on this one (as usual), you are still covered by the exception.

 

[Tinkerhell]

I agree with JRM here too. Any reason to go on or in the property to get your kid or drop them off is legal.

But in my case I MUST go in, sign the kids out & wait a bit for them to show up. If I am picking them up it is either the summer camp thing which they are doing now or from after school program. No line of cars at the school where I would "normally" wait and they come out. I MUST go in to get them every time.

Right now I'm waiting to hear back from the ADA. (Called them this morning and got the secretary who said she'd given my message to the ADA and she was to call me back when she gets in this morning. I love Jones county!) I'm assuming I'll eventually get in touch, she will say "this is our interpretation" and not be willing to explain why. If she will discuss it she won't put it in writing. ("We know what the words say but we don't want you to have a gun in the school so we are going to pretend the words mean something other than what they really mean" ](*,) )Then I'll have to ask the DA since he's is the one who actually matters unless I'm mistaken. He, of course, will agree with the ADA and also refuse to give me anything in writing.

Then I'll have to figure out exactly what they could reasonably charge me with and see if I am willing to throw the dice on being a test case. :scared:

For you guys in the profession: What could they reasonably charge me with & what's the penalty for those charges?

(I understand I have not retained any attorney and nothing posted here is taken as actual legal advice. :wink: )

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The district attorney's office, or any other government agency, can ask the Attorney General of the state of Georgia to issue an opinion. The AG's office won't do this for private citizens, but they will do it for a government agent.

What you learned from the assistant DA is just his or her personal opinion. It doesn't mean the elected DA (the boss of the entire office) agrees with it or is willing to prosecute such a case.

But I don't think any district attorneys office or solicitors office would attempt to prosecute something which the Attorney General's office says --in an official opinion--is not a crime.

So, if we are confident of our interpretation of the law, maybe we should ask the DAs Office to have the AG weigh in on the matter.

An AG opinion is unofficial when given to a District Attorney and is therefore non-bonding on that DA and other DAs throughout the state.

DAs are judicial circuit employees, not a state department.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

But in my case I MUST go in, sign the kids out & wait a bit for them to show up.

I used to have to go in and pick up my kid from an after school program. Go in, sign out, etc. I would conceal the pistol, but I had a knife clipped in my pocket (CRKT). They pointed it out and pointed to a sign where they had the definition of weapons from 16-11-127.1 with the parts about edged weapons highlighted.

I said, "That same law says it does not apply when I am picking up a student."

"What?"

I repeated what I said.

They never said anything after that, but they never took the sign down, either.

This was several years ago now.

 

[Tinkerhell]

ok last update probably for a while. The ADA called me back and we had a GREAT conversation. I will say again I LOVE Jones County and the folks in it. So reasonable and friendly!!

We had a 20 minute conversation. She gets it. Completely and was kinda surprised when I fully explained what I want to be doing and then pointed out the code sections relevant. The main issue for the school/JCSO is me wanting to use (c)(7) to enter the building to carry/pick up my kids. I was explicit that I understand this would not apply to Fall Festival, PTA, Parent Teacher conference etc. ONLY pick up & drop off. She said that the building wasn't included in the section. When I pointed out the exact wording of (a)(3)
"any real property or building". She stumbled slightly and then said that didn't mean inside the building.

:roll:

I then asked her if it would be ok for me to go climb the building and walk across the top of it or something. She chuckled. And I asked what she believed "or building" meant if not the inside of it. Seems odd given the language of the statute in regard to getting your kids that it would mean anything OTHER than inside. To the best of my knowledge the kids are never anywhere else unless they are outside on the "real property"....

She pondered a bit and declared that she certainly saw my point but that it apparently is the SO and the Superintendent's opinion that the code section means I can't go in the building and I could still be cited/arrested if that were the case. I then asked what the DA's opinion was and if such a hypothetical case landed on her desk would she prosecute it or not (and if so would it be this statute or something else that we haven't even talked about). Because I have a feeling that if the SO wastes time every day to be waiting on or responding to a call from the school to come out & cite/arrest me and every time the case is declined by the DA that the SO will eventually decide to quit pointlessly bothering me (I would think it would be a mighty hard sell for the DA to decline to prosecute a case one day and then turn around another day and decide to prosecute the exact same case. I would think that'd look really fishy to any judge once pointed out. I'm probably wrong about this because - Law....)

She then went into how case law and other opinions in the state would dictate that etc etc.... I advised I understood all of that pretty well and reiterated my question. If this came into the DA's office what would they do? She said that she would be happy to research this for me and if I would be patient she'd let me know. :woohoo:

My kids probably won't be back at the school until the year starts in a couple months so I said that would be absolutely wonderful. And after this exceptionally pleasant conversation I have every confidence that she will get back.

She professed to be happy about the recent changes in the OCGA regarding carrying and that she's all for it and thought that this is a very interesting situation. I'm actually looking forward to speaking with her and the SO and whoever else about this more. I still fear they will come back and say they will cite me but I have a hope that maybe my lovely county will come around and decide that words mean exactly what they say in plain English.

If they do it won't really help GCO as far as a test case but to get a green light with my officials and not have to suffer with the potential loss of a trial I'll take it.

 

[Tinkerhell]

I used to have to go in and pick up my kid from an after school program. Go in, sign out, etc. I would conceal the pistol, but I had a knife clipped in my pocket (CRKT). They pointed it out and pointed to a sign where they had the definition of weapons from 16-11-127.1 with the parts about edged weapons highlighted.

I said, "That same law says it does not apply when I am picking up a student."

"What?"

I repeated what I said.

They never said anything after that, but they never took the sign down, either.

This was several years ago now.

Oh Lordy! I can't even imagine ANYONE ever saying anything to a non-student in Jones County about carrying a knife. They might give you a citation around here if you DON'T carry a knife. Possibly run you out of town tarred and feathered. This is not an exaggeration. :lol:

 

[ber950]

Oh Lordy! I can't even imagine ANYONE ever saying anything to a non-student in Jones County about carrying a knife. They might give you a citation around here if you DON'T carry a knife. Possibly run you out of town tarred and feathered. This is not an exaggeration. :lol:

I used to deer hunt in Jones County on a piece of property that backs up to the Piedmont NWR. I would say that I would tend to agree with you. At least at that time. On the other hand the game & fish folks would cite you in a heartbeat for having a loaded handgun in a holster on the roads in the Piedmont. Glad that is legal now, but that is where I picked up the habit of always carrying concealed even in the woods.

 

[phantoms]

Wasn't there a Georgia case where the attorneys for the school claimed that we could already carry into the building to pick up or drop off?

I can't seem to remember what case it was.

 

[UtiPossidetis]

ok last update probably for a while. The ADA called me back and we had a GREAT conversation. I will say again I LOVE Jones County and the folks in it. So reasonable and friendly!!

We had a 20 minute conversation. She gets it. Completely and was kinda surprised when I fully explained what I want to be doing and then pointed out the code sections relevant. The main issue for the school/JCSO is me wanting to use (c)(7) to enter the building to carry/pick up my kids. I was explicit that I understand this would not apply to Fall Festival, PTA, Parent Teacher conference etc. ONLY pick up & drop off. She said that the building wasn't included in the section. When I pointed out the exact wording of (a)(3)
"any real property or building". She stumbled slightly and then said that didn't mean inside the building.

:roll:

I then asked her if it would be ok for me to go climb the building and walk across the top of it or something. She chuckled. And I asked what she believed "or building" meant if not the inside of it. Seems odd given the language of the statute in regard to getting your kids that it would mean anything OTHER than inside. To the best of my knowledge the kids are never anywhere else unless they are outside on the "real property"....

She pondered a bit and declared that she certainly saw my point but that it apparently is the SO and the Superintendent's opinion that the code section means I can't go in the building and I could still be cited/arrested if that were the case. I then asked what the DA's opinion was and if such a hypothetical case landed on her desk would she prosecute it or not (and if so would it be this statute or something else that we haven't even talked about). Because I have a feeling that if the SO wastes time every day to be waiting on or responding to a call from the school to come out & cite/arrest me and every time the case is declined by the DA that the SO will eventually decide to quit pointlessly bothering me (I would think it would be a mighty hard sell for the DA to decline to prosecute a case one day and then turn around another day and decide to prosecute the exact same case. I would think that'd look really fishy to any judge once pointed out. I'm probably wrong about this because - Law....)

She then went into how case law and other opinions in the state would dictate that etc etc.... I advised I understood all of that pretty well and reiterated my question. If this came into the DA's office what would they do? She said that she would be happy to research this for me and if I would be patient she'd let me know. :woohoo:

My kids probably won't be back at the school until the year starts in a couple months so I said that would be absolutely wonderful. And after this exceptionally pleasant conversation I have every confidence that she will get back.

She professed to be happy about the recent changes in the OCGA regarding carrying and that she's all for it and thought that this is a very interesting situation. I'm actually looking forward to speaking with her and the SO and whoever else about this more. I still fear they will come back and say they will cite me but I have a hope that maybe my lovely county will come around and decide that words mean exactly what they say in plain English.

If they do it won't really help GCO as far as a test case but to get a green light with my officials and not have to suffer with the potential loss of a trial I'll take it.

Thanks for being so persistent. Perhaps you could float to her that it might save her time to get an opinion from the State AG?

 

[phantoms]

Wasn't there a Georgia case where the attorneys for the school claimed that we could already carry into the building to pick up or drop off?

I can't seem to remember what case it was.

Found one court case that was dismissed, but in doing so they acknowledged the right to carry into a school to drop off/pick up a student.

From Johnson v. Fulton County Schools, the last one: Order denying the Interlocutory Injuction and Dismissing the case

Likelihood of Plaintiff Prevailing on the Merits

Although not controlling, in balancing the parties' equities, the Court must
consider the likelihood that Plaintiff will convince the Court he is entitled to carry a weapon onto school property without restrictions. Cherokee County, supra. Defendant contends Act 575 was repealed by implication when the General Assembly passed House Bill 60, which became Act 604, also effective on July 1, 2014 ("HB 60" or "Act 604"). Act 604 also broadens Subsection (c)' s exception to the Statute's general prohibition against carrying guns on school property. However, Act 604 does not go as far as Act 575. Act 604, in relevant part, allows a GWL to carry a gun into a school only when the GWL carries or picks up a student. Conceivably, under Act 604, Plaintiff could carry his gun into the school when accompanying his child to his or her classroom, but not for a teacher conference or when having lunch in the
cafeteria

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

That was the judge's writing in her order, not the attorneys' argument.

Judge Ellerbe also opined that HB 286 did not conflict with HB 60 and thus it was legal to carry into school when not dropping off or picking up. Unfortunately, she dismissed the case for other reasons, and so her opinion on that matter ended up not mattering.

Now the Supreme Court has ruled and declared a conflict, apparently ignoring their own precedent and Georgia statutes that instruct precisely on how to determine whether a conflict exists, and also claiming, falsely, that HB 60 made it illegal to carry into schools. That is the situation with which we are stuck, though, because there is no appealing from the Supreme Court. It is supreme.

 

[Clark]

That was the judge's writing in her order, not the attorneys' argument.

Judge Ellerbe also opined that HB 286 did not conflict with HB 60 and thus it was legal to carry into school when not dropping off or picking up. Unfortunately, she dismissed the case for other reasons, and so her opinion on that matter ended up not mattering.

Now the Supreme Court has ruled and declared a conflict, apparently ignoring their own precedent and Georgia statutes that instruct precisely on how to determine whether a conflict exists, and also claiming, falsely, that HB 60 made it illegal to carry into schools. That is the situation with which we are stuck, though, because there is no appealing from the Supreme Court. It is supreme.

Can't we file a lawsuit against the "supreme" morons court itself? Keep filing until they pay attention.