PDA

View Full Version : HB60 vs Georgia Weapons Carry License vs Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004



Little Creek
07-30-2014, 01:03 PM
This is for jlw or other knowledgeable LEOs. If one is a qualified retired LEO, with a GWCL, what is the penalty for inadvertently carrying a concealed firearm into a store (private property) etc., that has a "Gun Free Zone" style sign outside? Will the "carrier" simply be asked to take the firearm outside? Is there a civil or criminal penalty? Will there be a forfeiture of the GWCL? etc.? I know a properly concealed handgun will usually go undetected unless used it is used in self defense, etc.

HeadHunter
07-30-2014, 10:39 PM
This is for jlw or other knowledgeable LEOs. If one is a qualified retired LEO, with a GWCL, what is the penalty for inadvertently carrying a concealed firearm into a store (private property) etc., that has a "Gun Free Zone" style sign outside? Will the "carrier" simply be asked to take the firearm outside? Is there a civil or criminal penalty? Will there be a forfeiture of the GWCL? etc.? I know a properly concealed handgun will usually go undetected unless used it is used in self defense, etc.

Signs have no force of law in Georgia. All they can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse, then it's criminal trespass.

Alpha Sierra
07-31-2014, 04:11 AM
If one is a qualified retired LEO, with a GWCL, what is the penalty for inadvertently carrying a concealed firearm into a store (private property) etc., that has a "Gun Free Zone" style sign outside?

The penalty for you should be exactly the same as it is for everyone else.

Little Creek
07-31-2014, 06:10 AM
The penalty for you should be exactly the same as it is for everyone else.

I agree.

Dagga Boy
07-31-2014, 08:23 AM
The penalty for you should be exactly the same as it is for everyone else.

Are you equally good with the requirements for that LEOSA ID also be exactly the same for everyone who wants to carry a concealed firearm?

Little Creek
07-31-2014, 09:56 AM
Are you equally good with the requirements for that LEOSA ID also be exactly the same for everyone who wants to carry a concealed firearm?

Nope.

joshs
07-31-2014, 10:01 AM
Signs have no force of law in Georgia. All they can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse, then it's criminal trespass.

I think there are some problems with the "signs have no force of law" arguments made about a number of states. Generally these statements are referring to the fact that there is not a separate crime for carrying into a location with a specific type of sign, but that is not the limit of criminal liability that could result from the sign. I'd have to look at Georgia's notice requirements for criminal trespass, but the sign itself could be sufficient notice to alert someone that carrying a firearm on the premises would result in a trespass in the same way a "no trespassing" sign would.

This is even more of a problem in a number of states where the state law makes a permit invalid on private property where the property owner prohibits firearms. Again, the issue becomes one of sufficient notice, but a sign could lead to a violation of the prohibition on carry without a permit in these states because a permit holder carrying into a signed location could technically be seen as carrying without a permit.

joshs
07-31-2014, 10:05 AM
Nope. The LEOSA requires qualification within the last year of the course of the agency one retired from, if the agency will do it, or the POST standards course of the state in which one lives. The GWCL does not require qualification. with the recent passage of HB60, where is the rub? Google the LEOSA and read it and compare it to the GWCL and HB60.

I think nyeti was referring to the comment on a person carrying on LEOSA creds should be subject to the same restrictions as a person carrying on a "normal" license/permit.

Getting the GWCL was definitely a good idea because there are a number of problems that can arise from carrying solely on LEOSA creds (primarily state prohibited places and the GFSZA).

Little Creek
07-31-2014, 10:15 AM
I think nyeti was referring to the comment on a person carrying on LEOSA creds should be subject to the same restrictions as a person carrying on a "normal" license/permit.

Getting the GWCL was definitely a good idea because there are a number of problems that can arise from carrying solely on LEOSA creds (primarily state prohibited places and the GFSZA).

The LEOSA does not authorize the carry of firearms on private property against the owners wishes. My inquiry is about the penalty for an inadvertent violation, failure to see the sign, etc. I believe the penalties apply equally to both LEOSA and GWCL. It does not matter whether I agree or not. If I become aware of a restaurant that is a gun free zone, I will just spend my money somewhere else. I do believe in the 2A as written and am a Life member of the NRA.

ST911
07-31-2014, 10:51 AM
Stuff like this is why I retain a home state permit, a wide-coverage non-resident permit like UT, and LE creds. Pick the most advantageous umbrella to carry under for the time and place you need it or are scrutinized.

LSP972
07-31-2014, 12:21 PM
The penalty for you should be exactly the same as it is for everyone else.

Perhaps…but granting retired LEOs a bit more leeway in "prohibited places" is the same concept as granting extra consideration (in anything regulated) to returning veterans.

Or are you against that too?

.

joshs
07-31-2014, 12:34 PM
Perhaps…but granting retired LEOs a bit more leeway in "prohibited places" is the same concept as granting extra consideration (in anything regulated) to returning veterans.

Perhaps, but LEOSA doesn't do that. It's a common misconception amongst a lot of LEO's I've talked to about this that LEOSA gets them out of state prohibited places, it does to some, but not all, and the federal GFSZA.

ST911
07-31-2014, 01:33 PM
Are there any state/locals that do anything with the GFSZA, and at what threshold? Most seem to consider it or refer cases only when other criminal activity is present.

Even more go "huh?" when I ask about it, unless they have a companion state or local law.

LSP972
07-31-2014, 02:01 PM
Perhaps, but LEOSA doesn't do that. It's a common misconception amongst a lot of LEO's I've talked to about this that LEOSA gets them out of state prohibited places, it does to some, but not all, and the federal GFSZA.

I know. Under the auspices of HR218, it specifically states that one must obey the provisions (local, state, federal) of any prohibited areas that would normally be ignored by an active-duty cop; IOW, don't carry in those if you're not on the job.

What Alpha Sierra seemed to be saying is that a retired cop should be treated no differently from your average CCW-permitted citizen. That ignores the fact that cops, active or retired, are held to a higher standard when things go bad. The flip side of that is that said cops can reasonably be expected to not go full retard at the drop of a hat, due to their training and experience. If they do, you can be sure the court will come down harder on them.

To give a specific example… I do not dis-arm myself when picking up or dropping off my granddaughters at school. That's a violation of the "gun-free zone", since I'm no longer an active, commissioned LEO. But the chances of me getting arrested for it, should I be discovered, are slim (around here, anyway).

What we're talking about here is "officer discretion". As a retiree, I follow the same code of professionalism as I did when active. Having been held to a higher standard than my fellow citizens for almost 30 years, I now feel I should be cut a little slack (as long as I hold up my end; i.e., don't act retarded).

Some folks are annoyed by this. To me, its a little perk I earned the hard way.

Donning my nomex and kevlar now…:D

.

tmoore912
07-31-2014, 02:22 PM
This is for jlw or other knowledgeable LEOs. If one is a qualified retired LEO, with a GWCL, what is the penalty for inadvertently carrying a concealed firearm into a store (private property) etc., that has a "Gun Free Zone" style sign outside? Will the "carrier" simply be asked to take the firearm outside? Is there a civil or criminal penalty? Will there be a forfeiture of the GWCL? etc.? I know a properly concealed handgun will usually go undetected unless used it is used in self defense, etc.

IANAL

The problem in Ga.'s criminal trespass code is that there is no mention in the code section on exactly what constitutes notice. Verbally being ask to vacate the premises by the owner, agent of the owner, an authorized representative of the owner is certainly notice,....................... but is some little sticker with a gun and line through it in the window sufficient notice? We don't know, because as far as we know there is no case law on this actual issue.

Here is the Trespass Code in it's entirety. Part 2 and 3 is what we are dealing with.


O.C.G.A. § 16-7-21
Criminal trespass

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(e) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally defaces, mutilates, or defiles any grave marker, monument, or memorial to one or more deceased persons who served in the military service of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof, or a monument, plaque, marker, or memorial which is dedicated to, honors, or recounts the military service of any past or present military personnel of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof if such grave marker, monument, memorial, plaque, or marker is privately owned or located on land which is privately owned.

Ga. seems hesitant to pass any "Gun Buster" signage law, which I like as a GWCL holder.

The Ga. Legislature has always tried really hard to protect/maintain Private property rights when it comes to guns.

Here is the code section on carrying in unauthorized places:


O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127. Carrying weapons in unauthorized locations


(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Courthouse" means a building occupied by judicial courts and containing rooms in which judicial proceedings are held.

(2) "Government building" means:

(A) The building in which a government entity is housed;

(B) The building where a government entity meets in its official capacity; provided, however, that if such building is not a publicly owned building, such building shall be considered a government building for the purposes of this Code section only during the time such government entity is meeting at such building; or

(C) The portion of any building that is not a publicly owned building that is occupied by a government entity.

(3) "Government entity" means an office, agency, authority, department, commission, board, body, division, instrumentality, or institution of the state or any county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, or local board of education within this state.

(4) "Parking facility" means real property owned or leased by a government entity, courthouse, jail, prison, or place of worship that has been designated by such government entity, courthouse, jail, prison, or place of worship for the parking of motor vehicles at a government building or at such courthouse, jail, prison, or place of worship.

(b) Except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.1 and subsection (d) or (e) of this Code section, a person shall be guilty of carrying a weapon or long gun in an unauthorized location and punished as for a misdemeanor when he or she carries a weapon or long gun while:

(1) In a government building;

(2) In a courthouse;

(3) In a jail or prison;

(4) In a place of worship, unless the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holders;

(5) In a state mental health facility as defined in Code Section 37-1-1 which admits individuals on an involuntary basis for treatment of mental illness, developmental disability, or addictive disease; provided, however, that carrying a weapon or long gun in such location in a manner in compliance with paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of this Code section shall not constitute a violation of this subsection;

(6) On the premises of a nuclear power facility, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.2, and the punishment provisions of Code Section 16-11-127.2 shall supersede the punishment provisions of this Code section; or

(7) Within 150 feet of any polling place, except as provided in subsection (i) of Code Section 21-2-413.

(c) A license holder or person recognized under subsection (e) of Code Section 16-11-126 shall be authorized to carry a weapon as provided in Code Section 16-11-135 and in every location in this state not listed in subsection (b) or prohibited by subsection (e) of this Code section; provided, however, that private property owners or persons in legal control of private property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such private property shall have the right to exclude or eject a person who is in possession of a weapon or long gun on their private property in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-7-21, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages.

(d) Subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply:

(1) To the use of weapons or long guns as exhibits in a legal proceeding, provided such weapons or long guns are secured and handled as directed by the personnel providing courtroom security or the judge hearing the case;

(2) To a license holder who approaches security or management personnel upon arrival at a location described in subsection (b) of this Code section and notifies such security or management personnel of the presence of the weapon or long gun and explicitly follows the security or management personnel's direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun; and

(3) To a weapon or long gun possessed by a license holder which is under the possessor's control in a motor vehicle or is in a locked compartment of a motor vehicle or one which is in a locked container in or a locked firearms rack which is on a motor vehicle and such vehicle is parked in a parking facility.

(e) (1) A license holder shall be authorized to carry a weapon in a government building when the government building is open for business and where ingress into such building is not restricted or screened by security personnel. A license holder who enters or attempts to enter a government building carrying a weapon where ingress is restricted or screened by security personnel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if at least one member of such security personnel is certified as a peace officer pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 35; provided, however, that a license holder who immediately exits such building or immediately leaves such location upon notification of his or her failure to clear security due to the carrying of a weapon shall not be guilty of violating this subsection or paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this Code section. A person who is not a license holder and who attempts to enter a government building carrying a weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) Any license holder who violates subsection (b) of this Code section in a place of worship shall not be arrested but shall be fined not more than $100.00. Any person who is not a license holder who violates subsection (b) of this Code section in a place of worship shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.

jlw
07-31-2014, 04:25 PM
Georgia law requires specific notice for criminal trespass to apply. A sign in and of itself does not qualify.

A no weapons sign in and of itself does not make a place off limits in GA.

An argument can be made that if if you saw such a sign, recognized its meaning, and then ignored it and admitted to doing so that probable cause for criminal trespass could be reached.

I discussed this very issue with our ADA as well as a former prosecutor turned defense lawyer recently, and none of us could find an appeals court ruling upholding a sign in and of itself as being sufficient notice for a criminal trespass conviction. We were doing so to formulate an advisory and not to make a case.

Whether or not a person has a GWCL, is exempt, or is carrying under LEOSA, a private party can invoke criminal trespass on a carrier who refuses to leave after being told to do so. The court of appeals has upheld conditional restrictions.

Little Creek
08-01-2014, 01:51 PM
Georgia law requires specific notice for criminal trespass to apply. A sign in and of itself does not qualify.

A no weapons sign in and of itself does not make a place off limits in GA.

An argument can be made that if if you saw such a sign, recognized its meaning, and then ignored it and admitted to doing so that probable cause for criminal trespass could be reached.

I discussed this very issue with our ADA as well as a former prosecutor turned defense lawyer recently, and none of us could find an appeals court ruling upholding a sign in and of itself as being sufficient notice for a criminal trespass conviction. We were doing so to formulate an advisory and not to make a case.

Whether or not a person has a GWCL, is exempt, or is carrying under LEOSA, a private party can invoke criminal trespass on a carrier who refuses to leave after being told to do so. The court of appeals has upheld conditional restrictions.

Now that is a clear and concise answer. Thank you very much.

Frank R
08-01-2014, 04:26 PM
I know. Under the auspices of HR218, it specifically states that one must obey the provisions (local, state, federal) of any prohibited areas that would normally be ignored by an active-duty cop; IOW, don't carry in those if you're not on the job.

What Alpha Sierra seemed to be saying is that a retired cop should be treated no differently from your average CCW-permitted citizen. That ignores the fact that cops, active or retired, are held to a higher standard when things go bad. The flip side of that is that said cops can reasonably be expected to not go full retard at the drop of a hat, due to their training and experience. If they do, you can be sure the court will come down harder on them.

To give a specific example… I do not dis-arm myself when picking up or dropping off my granddaughters at school. That's a violation of the "gun-free zone", since I'm no longer an active, commissioned LEO. But the chances of me getting arrested for it, should I be discovered, are slim (around here, anyway).

What we're talking about here is "officer discretion". As a retiree, I follow the same code of professionalism as I did when active. Having been held to a higher standard than my fellow citizens for almost 30 years, I now feel I should be cut a little slack (as long as I hold up my end; i.e., don't act retarded).

Some folks are annoyed by this. To me, its a little perk I earned the hard way.

Donning my nomex and kevlar now…:D

.
A perk you earned the hard way? You must be joking. Whatever you earned you were paid for already. And being held to a higher standard while you were a cop is another joke. Your fellow citizens don't get away with half the things that cops get away with. You're living in a fantasy world and I sincerely hope you get busted for breaking the law as your fellow citizens would.

LSP972
08-01-2014, 05:35 PM
Ah, another disgruntled citizen. I'm surprised it took this long for that sort of reply.

Held to a higher standard is a joke? YOU are the one living in a fantasy world, bud.

Have a large day…;)

.

TumblinDown
08-01-2014, 07:25 PM
...An argument can be made that if if you saw such a sign, recognized its meaning, and then ignored it and admitted to doing so that probable cause for criminal trespass could be reached.

I have no clue whether Starbucks or Target post signs now, but let's say that you carried into one of those establishments. Regardless of whether you saw a sign or not, wouldn't prior notice of their intentions due to widespread news media coverage (or even discussion on forums like this one) suffice? Hard to prove, yes. However, if I recall the language, at least in the case of Target, they "respectfully" asked customers not to carry firearms into their stores. Hardly seems like a strong prohibition. Still, I just go elsewhere... not looking to be a trial balloon, so to speak.

jlw
08-01-2014, 07:32 PM
I have no clue whether Starbucks or Target post signs now, but let's say that you carried into one of those establishments. Regardless of whether you saw a sign or not, wouldn't prior notice of their intentions due to widespread news media coverage (or even discussion on forums like this one) suffice? Hard to prove, yes. However, if I recall the language, at least in the case of Target, they "respectfully" asked customers not to carry firearms into their stores. Hardly seems like a strong prohibition. Still, I just go elsewhere... not looking to be a trial balloon, so to speak.

GA law requires specific notice to an individual.

jlw
08-01-2014, 07:33 PM
A perk you earned the hard way? You must be joking. Whatever you earned you were paid for already. And being held to a higher standard while you were a cop is another joke. Your fellow citizens don't get away with half the things that cops get away with. You're living in a fantasy world and I sincerely hope you get busted for breaking the law as your fellow citizens would.

Such personal attacks are not tolerated here.

TCinVA
08-01-2014, 07:53 PM
What JLW said.

David Armstrong
08-02-2014, 01:14 PM
from LSP972:
To give a specific example… I do not dis-arm myself when picking up or dropping off my granddaughters at school. That's a violation of the "gun-free zone", since I'm no longer an active, commissioned LEO. But the chances of me getting arrested for it, should I be discovered, are slim (around here, anyway).
Have things changed? Last time I looked (admittedly a few years back) as long as the firearm was inside the vehicle there was no violation as constitution trumps statute. On a more general note, again because I haven't looked in a few years, IIRC LEOSA originally exempted officers from any GFZ except federal. Has that changed also??

LSP972
08-02-2014, 04:17 PM
No idea. Moot point for me, as I get out and go into the admin area to collar them.

By LEOSA, are you referring to HR218? That I read carefully, and last I looked at it, it was basically the same "prohibitions" that apply to non-LEO CCW permitted folks in our state. IOW, most government buildings, Class 1 liquor licensed establishments, churches (unless the pastor and congregation have agreed to [and met the requirements of] the add-on provision of a few years back) and anywhere placarded or verbally advised by the owner/lessee.

.

David Armstrong
08-03-2014, 04:21 PM
Yes, LEOSA was the original term used to refer to what became HR218, and as originally written it pretty much allowed properly certified folks to disregard all stste-level restrictions on CCW carry, basically allowing LEO retirees to carry anywhere a current LEO could carry. I know it has been through at least 2 revisions since then, I guess I better go take a look at it and get up to speed.

ST911
08-03-2014, 04:51 PM
The legislation and subsequent amendments would be more properly referred to under the banner "LEOSA" rather than HR218, a specific designation for a bill at the time of introduction and passage.

joshs
08-03-2014, 07:33 PM
I'd have to double check, but I think the LEOSA location prohibitions have always been gov't buildings and private property at the discretion of the property owner. LEOSA also has no affect on federal laws, so the GFSZA, federal facilities ban,and regulatory prohibitions (postal property etc.) still apply to current and retired officers carrying pursuant to LEOSA.

This post is not legal advice and it is not meant to create an attorney-client relationship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

LSP972
08-04-2014, 06:05 PM
I remember reading it when it was first passed, in 2005 or so, and even back then it had the "no-gun zones must be obeyed" language. I read it again, closely, just before retiring in 2007, and I don't recall any substantive changes. I haven't kept up with any changes, because I don't travel and my retired State Police ID handles any minor annoyances here.

LSP552 travels a lot on the king's business; I'll give him a bump and see if he is aware of any new 'gotchas'.

I did run across one interesting thing today, though. While at the local big-time gun emporium, looking for a VP9, Bubba came in with a box full of trading material; mainly plain vanilla deer rifles, bird guns, etc., but then he pulled out a near-mint 3953, complete with extra magazine. I grabbed the assistant manager, a friend, and told him "I want that."

After Bubba had been taken care of, we did the paper on mine, and I was informed that if I showed my LA CCW permit I could skip the NICS check. I was aware that this was being considered in the legislature, but didn't know it had passed. Moot point; I don't have one. I know several of us retirees were debating the merits of getting one, for several reasons, but I cannot remember now what those merits were, and in any event I never followed up on it.

I'm wondering now if it might be a good idea; but then, any cop in another state who isn't inclined to honor a retired police ID probably doesn't care anything about reciprocity or out-of-state concealed permits, either.

.

ST911
08-04-2014, 06:14 PM
Here's a great primer from the FOP on LEOSA and its enabling legislation (HR218, S1132, HR4310). It's in summarized form, plain language and includes the essentials.

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf


Is the exemption provided by the law total—can I now carry anywhere at any
time?

No. The new law exempts all qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and
local laws with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. These officers are not exempt from
Federal law or regulation, which governs the carriage of firearms onto aircraft or other “common
carriers,” Federal buildings, Federal property, or national parks.
In addition, State (not local) laws which prohibit the carriage of firearms onto State or local
government property and State (not local) laws which allow private entities to prohibit firearms on
their private property would still apply to qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

LSP972
08-04-2014, 07:47 PM
That's the provisions as I understood them…. guess they haven't changed.

Thanks for that.

.

joshs
08-04-2014, 07:53 PM
After Bubba had been taken care of, we did the paper on mine, and I was informed that if I showed my LA CCW permit I could skip the NICS check. I was aware that this was being considered in the legislature, but didn't know it had passed.

It passed, but as far as I know BATFE hasn't certified the permit as NICS exempt, so FFLs shouldn't be accepting it as an alternative to a NICS check.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

LSP972
08-05-2014, 04:48 AM
I was wondering about that. I've heard that this is the case in other states (a valid CCW permit eliminates the need for a NICS check), but I imagine the ATF has to vet each process, etc.

Again, moot point for me.

.

joshs
08-05-2014, 08:51 AM
I was wondering about that. I've heard that this is the case in other states (a valid CCW permit eliminates the need for a NICS check), but I imagine the ATF has to vet each process, etc.

They do, here is the list of qualifying permits/licenses: https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/permanent-brady-permit-chart

LSP972
08-05-2014, 04:53 PM
Interesting.

Thanks.

.