...A federal judge ruled recently that carrying a firearm openly in a park entitles responding officers to detain an individual for investigation, including disarming, questioning, and identification. ...
...I'm not going to bother elaborating on every detail, but for one he said that failure to provide ID was a basis for the detention, but the failure to provide ID occurred after the detention had already occurred...
I'll have to go read it again, but I got that the gun is cause for detention and the failure to provide ID was cause for arrest.
After all, asking for ID is already detention.
Negative..... TAKING the ID from someone is detention. You can show them your ID and not be detained...
Negative..... TAKING the ID from someone is detention. You can show them your ID and not be detained...
Detention is when you no longer feel free to leave. So if the cop TAKES your ID then you wouldn't leave your ID behind, so your detained. If he says, "Can i see your ID?" And you just hold it up, then your not detained. If he says "You can't leave until I see your ID" Then your detained.
This is why guys yell " AM I BEING DETAINED!!" on camera. So if the officer says Yes, they can't leave. If the officer says no, then you just turn and walk away.
So.... "Hey what's your name?" No detention. "Hey give your ID" Detention. Courts have already ruled the s*** out of this.
In MA, if your involved with someone involved with anything while armed, you can demand to see their ID, based on the fact they need the ID. Kind of like driving. If you get stopped, you get demanded to see license. Refuse to provide DL or basic info, jail.
If a cop is demanding your ID, you are being detained.
I'll have to go read it again, but I got that the gun is cause for detention and the failure to provide ID was cause for arrest.
The Court assumes that Plaintiff was detained shortly after Bell arrived at the Park when Bell, in response to Plaintiff’s question whether he was being detained, stated that he was. Plaintiff argues that when this detention occurred, Bell did not have a reasonable suspicion to detain.
Bell was advised by a police dispatcher that a security guard had reported a suspicious person in the Park who was “carrying a gun out in the open” as he walked near a playground, who, when Bell arrived at the Park, did have a visible weapon, and who evaded Bell’s questions and requests for identification bearing a photograph, provided more than a sufficient basis constitutionally to detain Plaintiff.
Georgia does indeed require a permit to either carry openly or concealed.The only thing I can't tell is whether GA requires a permit to OC. If that was the case, the detention would have been legal as to determining whether he was a permit holder.
Georgia does indeed require a permit to either carry openly or concealed.
HOWEVER...
As the law is written, it is similar to the requirement to possess a driving license while driving and does not presume that the act itself is illegal. It is no more legal to stop someone with a firearm 'just to make sure they are licensed' than it is to stop someone 'just to check their license' because they are seen driving in a legal manner on a public street.
Prior to about 2010(?) it was an affirmative defense, but SB208 (passed about 2010) completely rewrote that section of the law.
On topic... While the GA traffic code requires one to have a license while driving and to present said license when requested by an officer (OCGA 40-5-29 License to be carried and exhibited on demand) the applicable Code regarding firearms provides no penalty for not having the license on one's person, nor does it authorize an officer to demand such license as 40-5-29 does.
Cites, please. Forum Rule #5.