GWL Boundaries and limitations

Discussion in 'General GWL Questions' started by Paczowski123, Dec 30, 2010.

  1. Paczowski123

    Paczowski123 New Member

    29
    0
    0
    My question regards the GWL and its limits. I now you can use your firearm for self defense, where else do your boundaries exist. Such as catching someone in the process of theft, defending someone else if you encounter them in need, etc?
     
  2. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,783
    312
    83
    The GWL extends boundries for carry, not so much for usage. When you can use a gun (lethal force really) is to stop or prevent a forcible felony. That law is independent of carry a weapon under the GWL.
     

  3. Paczowski123

    Paczowski123 New Member

    29
    0
    0
    yes i did not mean lethal force necessarily, i simply meant as you put it prevention. If i stumbled upon someone breaking into my car, or someones car, house, etc, a person being harassed, if i pulled my weapon would i be in the wrong was mainly what my question was aiming at.
     
  4. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    IANAL. YMMV.

    Only point your gun at someone if you are in fear of your life (or the life of another person). Only pull the trigger if you are in fear of your life (or the life of another person) and you have absolutely no other choice.

    Again, YMMV. IANAL.
     
  5. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    To protect your car, you'd be wrong. Defense of another person is in need of more information. If I believed another person to be at risk for bodily harm or death, I would draw. I would not draw if someone were calling them names or threatening. See the difference?

    Click on the "Gun Laws" at the top of this page. Commit them to memory.
     
  6. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,783
    312
    83
    +1 The forcible felony issue is key. Lethal force (or threatening the use thereof) should only be used when you are in reasonable fear for your life or, potentially the life of another. It may be tempting to handle situations like you described yourself, but you risk elevating a situation to potentially lethal consequences. For a stolen car, etc., it just isn't worth it and it is too easy for you to be viewed the bad guy instead of the legitimate bad guy. Even if someone stormed into your house, it isn't an automatic "ok" to start shooting. You need to access each and every situation that you encounter (as much as possible) before introducing a weapon.

    Technically, there is no brandishing law in GA, but if you haven't done everything you can to evade and/or diffuse a situation, then, legally, it can bring your actions into question (e.g. were you "looking for trouble") and you could make the situation worse (e.g. they produce a gun, start shooting, and some innocent bystander gets hurt).
     
  7. CountryGun

    CountryGun New Member

    7,594
    0
    0
    Sorry, but we do differ there, though I appreciate the support on the rest of the argument. If someone storms my house (invades), they're going to be DRT (dead right there). I do not have to prove anything other than they invaded my "castle". It makes no difference whether they are "armed" or not. If they have arms, they're dead! A man only needs hands, or for that matter a lethal kick to kill someone.
     
  8. RedDawnTheMusical

    RedDawnTheMusical Well-Known Member

    10,783
    312
    83
    Well "stormed" is probably a bad choice of words I used. I suspect that anyone that just storms into someone's home is risking a lot. I'm thinking more along the lines if someone simply entered, say if it was a "mentally challenged" person that came into your house thinking it was their's or those Kirby vacuum cleaner people that won't leave even after you let them in...
     
  9. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    8
    0
    Some reading material for you...

    O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21: Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
    O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23: Use of force in defense of habitation
    O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1: No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense


    O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24: Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation
    O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24.1: Habitation and personal property defined


    O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24.2: Immunity from prosecution; exception
     
  10. harleymason

    harleymason New Member

    396
    0
    0
    Country Gun, you are absolutely right. If someone kicks in my door I am NOT going to wait around to see if they have a weapon or not. The very fact that they stormed my house gives me all the info I need about them. I have 4 little ones that I am responsible for their well being and safety. Someone invades my house it's game over irregardless of what their intentions are.
     
  11. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,827
    503
    113
    Sorry to be an ass, but you were doing too much work...
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,419
    113
    I disagree. The license makes carry and possession legal in public, and is an element of the crime for certain locations. A failure to have the license could make carry and possession illegal and therefore lose you immunity from civil and criminal prosecution, which makes a huge difference should you need to use it.