Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

461 - 480 of 489 Posts

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,819 Posts
More carve-outs for special people, but the shaft for the rest of us. I hope every idiot that voted for HB 479 loses their next election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phantoms and OWM

·
PITA
Joined
·
292 Posts
More carve-outs for special people, but the shaft for the rest of us. I hope every idiot that voted for HB 479 loses their next election.
Actually, I hope every one of those idiots find themselves in a situation where the law they helped get passed gets their sorry asses thrown in prison. Wouldn't that be ironic...and amusing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
What's more rediculous is that those private persons at a retail establishment can stop someone who's stolen property. But if the miscreant committed a homicide in the store, nope, can't stop them or detain them.

MP, I am not seeing the security guard carveout other than for the Nuclear Power Plant Security....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,508 Posts
Actually, I hope every one of those idiots find themselves in a situation where the law they helped get passed gets their sorry asses thrown in prison. Wouldn't that be ironic...and amusing?
Or they find themselves in a bad situation where no one will assist because of the law they pushed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,556 Posts
More carve-outs for special people, but the shaft for the rest of us. I hope every idiot that voted for HB 479 loses their next election.
Or signed it into law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,556 Posts
I hope we don't have to wait too long before some unwitting "law abiding" citizen gets caught up in this BS to see how the real world ramifications fall out.
 

·
PITA
Joined
·
292 Posts
I hope we don't have to wait too long before some unwitting "law abiding" citizen gets caught up in this BS to see how the real world ramifications fall out.
I just hope that the poor bastard was in favor of the law, because I sure don't want to see a decent person doing a decent thing have to "take one for the team".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
I sure don't want to see a decent person doing a decent thing have to "take one for the team".
Decent people going to have to get much smarter and have plans in place to counter the actions of stupid politicians.
The phone number of a good attorney wouldn't hurt either. I'm sure some of the smarter ones will specialize in a post legal citizen arrest event.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,961 Posts
What's more rediculous is that those private persons at a retail establishment can stop someone who's stolen property. But if the miscreant committed a homicide in the store, nope, can't stop them or detain them.

MP, I am not seeing the security guard carveout other than for the Nuclear Power Plant Security....
See lines 94-95 and lines 132-135.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
I guess we need a what if thread on this HB479 screw up. Anyway another what if. A discussion came up around the supper table last night about an event with an escaped state prisoner on our little kingdom. A road crew of prisoners were working on the road nearby as I had just passed them driving home. Home being about 1/2 mile down the road another 1/4 mile back in the woods. While driving down the driveway to the house I caught movement off to my right. Then I caught a good look at a white uniform with blue stripes. I eased on back to the house went to the back door told my wife to hand me the ready rifle and for her to call the sheriff and to go into lockdown as per our training. I then went over to a utility building that gave me a good advantage point and sure enough there he is moving slowly back towards the house. Now this was back before cell phones and all. Just me a black rifle and a couple of 20 round mags. I chose my spot and confronted him. He started to rabbit but I convinced him it was a bad idea. I performed a citizens arrest as it were. It seems to me that HB479 says that I would be a felon if the same events were to occur today. Am I right or wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimBob and Phil1979

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,961 Posts
That only appears to cover arrest for theft/shoplifting. Not for detaining a violent attacker.
I disagree, but I am willing to hear your explanation so I can figure out what it is I am doing wrong when reading HB 479.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,961 Posts
Let's back up. The law before HB 479 said private detectives and security guards had citizen's arrest powers. That statute was repealed by HB 479. Now a private detective or security guard can arrest if the arrest is "needed in the performance of his or her business conducted in conformance with" the chapter on licensing security guards and private detectives.

Does that mean arrest powers or no arrest powers? Are such powers, if they exist, limited to arresting shoplifters? I do not see anything in the law now so limiting it, but I could argue that no arrest is "necessary" to the "business" of being a security guard. "Just be the eyes and call the police." I could also argue that they are in the business of arresting lawbreakers on the premises, including just arresting folks who refuse to leave that are disrupting others. I could argue both ways.

I submit it is the definition of a "grey area."

I'd like to hear more from anybody who has read the lines references above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
Are security guard arrest powers delineated elsewhere other than what's in HB 479?

Lines 77 through 91 detail the circumstances where private persons may detain/arrest a person suspected of or has committed

the.. "offense of theft by shoplifting as set forth in Code Section 16-8-14, refund fraud as set forth in Code Section 16-8-14.1, or theft by unlawful use of retail sales receipts or Universal Product Code labels as set forth in Code Section 16-8-17"

...or...

"theft by taking as set forth in Code Section 16-8-2 or theft of services as set forth in Code Section 16-8-5;"

The locations are detailed as being in "food service establishments", "retail establishments" and "of any business entity operating on their own property or on the property
of others on which they are doing business".

Out in a park doesn't count. Out in public doesn't count.

What am I missing?

Is there another version of this bill?
I thought this was what was passed: Georgia General Assembly


Looking at
43-38-13
"Licensees or registrants under this chapter shall have the same power of arrest as that granted to a private person by Code Section 17-4-60."

That was repealed too, as you state, in Section 6 of HB 479. Do PI's and security guards have any other arrest powers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
As best as I can tell, security guards can force someone out/off of the property that they protect (16-3-24) but they cannot detain them. They certainly can't arrest them and hold them for the police. They don't have the legal power any more than a regular citizen does. If the police need specific powers of arrest as detailed out in title 17, one would think that Security guards would as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
After talking with some folks this weekend it amazes me that people in general have no clue as to what has just happen in their State. I gave an example of catching someone from somewhere being on your property rummaging through your stuff and walking off with some of it and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it other than call the law. They don't believe me. What a damn mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimBob

·
Professional Troll
Joined
·
2,151 Posts
After talking with some folks this weekend it amazes me that people in general have no clue as to what has just happen in their State. I gave an example of catching someone from somewhere being on your property rummaging through your stuff and walking off with some of it and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it other than call the law. They don't believe me. What a damn mess.
Yep. and those same people will still find a way to rationalize supporting Kemp and the rest of the Republicans over this mess. Stockholm Syndrome is very real.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,961 Posts
Are security guard arrest powers delineated elsewhere other than what's in HB 479?

Lines 77 through 91 detail the circumstances where private persons may detain/arrest a person suspected of or has committed

the.. "offense of theft by shoplifting as set forth in Code Section 16-8-14, refund fraud as set forth in Code Section 16-8-14.1, or theft by unlawful use of retail sales receipts or Universal Product Code labels as set forth in Code Section 16-8-17"

...or...

"theft by taking as set forth in Code Section 16-8-2 or theft of services as set forth in Code Section 16-8-5;"

The locations are detailed as being in "food service establishments", "retail establishments" and "of any business entity operating on their own property or on the property
of others on which they are doing business".

Out in a park doesn't count. Out in public doesn't count.

What am I missing?

Is there another version of this bill?
I thought this was what was passed: Georgia General Assembly


Looking at
43-38-13
"Licensees or registrants under this chapter shall have the same power of arrest as that granted to a private person by Code Section 17-4-60."

That was repealed too, as you state, in Section 6 of HB 479. Do PI's and security guards have any other arrest powers?
There are no arrest powers other than for police in Georgia law now. Instead, Act 264 provides for an authorization for certain persons, in certain circumstances, to "detain." While we all know a detention is an arrest, I think this use of certain terminology was intentional by the drafters.

There is no longer an authorization for security guards and private detectives to detain a person except as set forth in HB 479, which is now Georgia law. So it is no longer HB 479, but Act 264 (2021). As you correctly observe, Act 264 repeals the former arrest powers of security guards and private detectives because those arrest powers were based in the citizen's arrest statutes.

Article 5 of the bill gives the arrest powers detention powers, the only ones now existing, of "private persons," a term nowhere defined but presumably intended to mean not a certified peace officer. Article 5 contains a new statute, OCGA 17-4-80, and subsection (b) of that new code section provides the circumstances in which a "private person may detain." See line 77. Note the word "if" followed by a list. Note the word "or" after the second to last item in the list. See line 93.

A private person may detain an individual if such private person is:
(1)
(2)
. . .
or
(5) A licensee or registrant under Chapter 38 of Title 43 when needed in the performance
of his or her business conducted in conformance with such chapter.


So, restated another way,
"A private person may detain an individual if such private person is: . . . A licensee or registrant under Chapter 38 of Title 43 when needed in the performance of his or her business conducted in conformance with such chapter."




As usual, pay attention to certain words used, like "needed" rather than "when reasonable" and the connection to the business requirement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,085 Posts
Stockholm Syndrome is very real.
You may be correct on that. I also wonder if it might just be plain apathy about what the people they elect do in Atlanta or who those elected officials really represent. It ain't us. Then the question must be asked who are they going to vote for the liberals. Screwed either way.
 
461 - 480 of 489 Posts
Top