Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Specifically
Megesi v. State, 627 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. App. 2006).

Now remember back about a month ago M_P had that discussion with the Gwinett cop about what would happen if they saw open carry. And also remember that part of the response would be to disarm and check the person open carrying.

My observation is that some language from this case casts doubt (in my mind) that the Gwinett SOP is proper under the law.

Even though Terry and its successors authorized searches for weapons only when the officers had the reasonable belief that the suspect was potentially dangerous, the officer's actual knowledge that a weapon was present alters the basic formula. The presence of an unsecured weapon creates an inherently dangerous situation that authorizes the officer to take protective measures to secure the weapon.

Therefore, the relevant independent fact necessary to decide the question presented here is that Megesi informed the officer that he had a weapon in the car. The officer's seizure of the pistol from inside Megesi's vehicle was permissible because he knew from Megesi's own words and from his own observation that the pistol was there. Moreover, even if the officer had assumed that Megesi had a lawful gun permit, the United States Supreme Court has expressly rejected the view that the validity of a Terry search depends on whether the weapon is possessed legally. See Adams v. Williams, supra, 407 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921.
An unsecured weapon? Since Georgia law requires weapons carried on or about the person to be in a holster (guns in cars are not required to be in holsters, GFL or not) then aren't legally carried guns by definition "secured." In fact wasn't the legislative purpose in requiring a holster just part of the larger Georgia Constitutional allowance that the legislature can regulate the manner in which one carries (in this case in a holster; therefore secured)?

Therefore, it seems that when the weapon is secured there is no "inherently dangerous situation that authorizes the officer to take protective measures to secure the weapon." Unless there is suspicion of some other crime that would give an officer reason to conduct a Terry test.

OR does the bolded statement in the second paragraph allow for an officer detaining, disarming, and etc just for open carrying?

Or am I off my rocker?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Is open carry the preferred method of carry under the law?

Ross v. State, 566 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. App. 2002).
[T]he law forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons was designed to put those dealing with such persons on notice so that they could govern themselves accordingly.
Everytime I read this part of me thinks that the legislative intent could be read to say almost the same thing as Heinlein's famous qoute.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
So does on notice to govern themselves accordingly mean
A) OH $HIT HE HAS A GUN, CALL THE COPS
or
B) As Heinlein would agree, "That guy has a gun, I probably should not insult his wife, key his car, act like a bastard around him."
or
C) Am I being way, way to philosophical about this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
But if that's true then it means that everyone who isn't a LEO carrying open or concealed has an "unsecured weapon"

What if the gun is in the privacy of your own home locked in your gun safe. Is it "unsecured" then?
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top