Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Identification required?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cumming, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Here's a question that's caused me a bit of thought lately:

    Given that Open Carry is lawful under GA laws so long as one is in posession of a valid GFL.
    Given that Open Carry is lawful and should not be a cause for an unwarranted stop by Law Enforcement.

    so.....

    If stopped by LEO and asked for identification is one under any oblication to provide.....what?
    I realise that I am under obligation to provide identification should I be placed under arrest, or am being cited for an infraction. Barring that, what are my legal obligations to the State?

    My GFL? I can see where it may be hard to assertain whether I am in fact the person named on the liscense.
    My Driver's License? What if I'm not operating a vehicle on Georgia highways?
    My leather bound copy of the Constitution? that thing's waaay too heavy to carry on a daily basis.




    I've been lurking and absorbing for a long time, just occured to me to come up for air.




  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Fallschirjmäger wrote:
    Here's a question that's caused me a bit of thought lately:

    Given that Open Carry is lawful under GA laws so long as one is in posession of a valid GFL.
    Given that Open Carry is lawful and should not be a cause for an unwarranted stop by Law Enforcement.

    so.....

    If stopped by LEO and asked for identification is one under any oblication to provide.....what?
    I realise that I am under obligation to provide identification should I be placed under arrest, or am being cited for an infraction. Barring that, what are my legal obligations to the State?

    My GFL? I can see where it may be hard to assertain whether I am in fact the person named on the liscense.
    My Driver's License? What if I'm not operating a vehicle on Georgia highways?
    My leather bound copy of the Constitution? that thing's waaay too heavy to carry on a daily basis.

    Welcome! Hope the first breath goes well.

    Does the GFL or the statute authorizing it require you to show identification if the license is demanded?

    On your other questions, you'll have to research your State Law. I googled the GA legislature and found this link on its home page: http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp



    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Statesboro, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    C'mon over to http://www.georgiapacking.org/ and say hi.

    We had a thread almost exactly like this here:
    http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/...pic.php?t=4444

    The basic conclusion was that you HAVE TO show your GFL, but nothing else. Recommendation is to also show the DL or other photo ID (school, work, etc.) but it's not required.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cumming, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    Hey guys, thanks for all the replies.

    It's pretty much the same as thoughts in that the GFL is "identification" so far as my carrying a firearm is concerned. If anyone believes it to be insufficent that's for them to take up with the Court, not me.


    Oh, I've been on GeorgiaPacking, too. Just as here I've been imitating the wise old owl.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Liberty County, GA, ,
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    Under Georgia state law a GFL is valid ID to use at the polls when voting. I used mine the last time I voted in 2006.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    officerjdc wrote:
    Under Georgia state law a GFL is valid ID to use at the polls when voting. I used mine the last time I voted in 2006.
    I used mine last time, too, but it that still the law today? I thought the voter I.D. law changed? Hard to keep up with all the court challenges.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Well, because when you apply for your GFL, your picture ID, such as DL or Greencard numbers are used, the officer doing the stop should be able to simply punch in your GFL number and cross ref with DL or GC etc, thus pull a mug shot.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    exgabrit wrote:
    Well, because when you apply for your GFL, your picture ID, such as DL or Greencard numbers are used, the officer doing the stop should be able to simply punch in your GFL number and cross ref with DL or GC etc, thus pull a mug shot.
    What?

    None of that is true at all.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Given the info they take, I would have thought that they'd be able to connect the dots ???? are you saying that they have no easy way of determining the identity behind the GFL they carry ??

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    exgabrit wrote:
    Given the info they take, I would have thought that they'd be able to connect the dots ???? are you saying that they have no easy way of determining the identity behind the GFL they carry ??
    There is no connection between GFLs and DLs. There is no central database of info for GFLs.

    My GFL number is formatted XX-XXXX, nothing like the DL numbers. Each county might number the GFLs they issue differently.

    The GFL must be taken at face value by anyone inspecting it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    without a database of GFL at least on a county level, crossrefer'ing would be impossible. should a DB exist, the fact that the numbering system is different shouldn't cause a problem with a cross-ref table connecting a DL with GFL even if its a manual lookup.
    i'll have to investigate and see if i can find out if anything is kept anywhere.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    exgabrit wrote:
    without a database of GFL at least on a county level, crossrefer'ing would be impossible. should a DB exist, the fact that the numbering system is different shouldn't cause a problem with a cross-ref table connecting a DL with GFL even if its a manual lookup.
    i'll have to investigate and see if i can find out if anything is kept anywhere.
    I was a police officer for 12 years ( up until 2001). At that time, there was no way to verify.

    I believe that is still the case, which is why West Virginia will not honor Georgia's license.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    I'm amazed (well not really, its the gov after all). from an IT / programming stand point, I could go home today and write a system in my off hours that could connect them all together, coded and tested by the end of the month (including tea breaks). but i'm sure why they don't have it is that they get quoted tens of millions of dollars for jobs.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Here's a question that's caused me a bit of thought lately:

    Given that Open Carry is lawful under GA laws so long as one is in posession of a valid GFL.
    Given that Open Carry is lawful and should not be a cause for an unwarranted stop by Law Enforcement.

    so.....

    If stopped by LEO and asked for identification is one under any oblication to provide.....what?
    Driving a car is lawful under GA laws so long as one is in possession of a valid DL. Driving is assumed to be lawful and should not be cause for an unwarranted stop.

    However,IF you arestopped, the first thing they ask for is license, registration and proof of insurance. Failure to provide any of theseif stopped for a moving violation is a ticketable offense. A police officer must have an articulable reason to stop you, but because detainment is not an arrest the officer isnot required toexpress the reason for the detainment.

    Driving a car is an everyday occurrence, and the act of simply driving a car will not attract attention. Open carry, on the other hand, is rare and attracts LOTS of attention, like driving an Indy car on the freeway. If there is reasonable articulable suspicion you could be doing something illegal, as you would be if you didn't have a license, they can stop you because you attracted their attention to possible violations of carry laws. You did so simply by carrying, but unless the officer is pressed to elaborate in courtthat will probably never come to light.

    Now, that really shouldn't apply; it's an unfair bias. A personcarrying should be presumed to be doing so legally just as a driver would be. That however probably won't happen until more people OC and/or a permit is not required to do so.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    If there is reasonable articulable suspicion you could be doing something illegal, as you would be if you didn't have a license, they can stop you . . .
    Liko81, if the crime of which the officer suspects you is carrying without a license, would he not have to be able to articulate his particularized reasonable suspicion that you are not licensed before making the stop?

    It is not reasonable suspicion that you are a weirdo for carrying, it is reasonable suspicion of a crime. Right?

    An Indy car on the freeway would be illegal. A wild paint job may be unusual, but he cannot stop you for something unusual. A wild paint job is not a crime.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Well, logic is on our side.
    The way the world works is that weird or unusual gets attention whether valid or not. Although I'm sure if you lived in little five points, weird or unusual would be the norm and probably carrying wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

    people who have guns and carry are really adopting a lifestyle and right now, that lifestyle isn't the lifestyle most people pursue. i'm sure in a view years, us gun carriers will be as accepted as goths, gays and people with odd car colors.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    The other completely obvious fact is that if you are a criminal or carrying without a license, if you OC'd and are stopped, you are in a crap load of trouble. Therefore such as person would NOT open carry period. Ergo, a LEO would be wasting his / her time stopping an OC'er simply due to the fact that such a person (unless completely dense) is carrying with a license.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    exgabrit wrote:
    The other completely obvious fact is that if you are a criminal or carrying without a license, if you OC'd and are stopped, you are in a crap load of trouble. Therefore such as person would NOT open carry period. Ergo, a LEO would be wasting his / her time stopping an OC'er simply due to the fact that such a person (unless completely dense) is carrying with a license.
    In 12 years of police work, I never once encountered a criminal openly carrying a pistol in a belt holster.

    So, I think you are correct, the fact of open carry tends to indicate there is no crime, not the converse.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the validation :-)
    I got something right today, haha.

    Ironically I was emailing my wife today who is staying in south london with a friend for a month. I myself am a UK citizen from the same area. she's scared to leave the apartment even during the day. jokingly i offered to mail her gun. sad state of affairs when gun ownership is taken away and fear to leave an apartment takes over.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    If there is reasonable articulable suspicion you could be doing something illegal, as you would be if you didn't have a license, they can stop you . . .
    Liko81, if the crime of which the officer suspects you is carrying without a license, would he not have to be able to articulate his particularized reasonable suspicion that you are not licensed before making the stop?

    It is not reasonable suspicion that you are a weirdo for carrying, it is reasonable suspicion of a crime. Right?

    An Indy car on the freeway would be illegal. A wild paint job may be unusual, but he cannot stop you for something unusual. A wild paint job is not a crime.
    And just like I said, it's an unfair bias.You mentioned awild paint job; thatdoes indeed make the cops look more closely at what you're doing. Same with sports cars, ultra-luxuryvehicles (Bentleys, Rolls Royces, Maseratis)or other conspicuous consumer vehicles. The same aspect of human nature that makes those cars desireable as head-turners also puts you in a more uncomfortable spotlight for thieves and cops. OCing is similar in that respect; it's uncommon and thus it turns heads of both the public at large and LEOs.Turning headsmay or may not be the purpose (one might argue that if you could legally CC and OCed instead your purpose is to advertise the fact you are armed; not the topic ofdiscussion), but regardless, you are going to catch the attention of LEOs, whose job it is to look for things that are out of place that could indicate wrongdoing. OC by itself is not reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and so the LEO should not simply be able to Terry stop you, but you're going to catch their eye and if they see you doing anything else wrong they can stop you.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    Malum Prohibitum wrote:
    Liko81 wrote:
    If there is reasonable articulable suspicion you could be doing something illegal, as you would be if you didn't have a license, they can stop you . . .
    Liko81, if the crime of which the officer suspects you is carrying without a license, would he not have to be able to articulate his particularized reasonable suspicion that you are not licensed before making the stop?

    It is not reasonable suspicion that you are a weirdo for carrying, it is reasonable suspicion of a crime. Right?

    An Indy car on the freeway would be illegal. A wild paint job may be unusual, but he cannot stop you for something unusual. A wild paint job is not a crime.
    And just like I said, it's an unfair bias.You mentioned awild paint job; thatdoes indeed make the cops look more closely at what you're doing. Same with sports cars, ultra-luxuryvehicles (Bentleys, Rolls Royces, Maseratis)or other conspicuous consumer vehicles. The same aspect of human nature that makes those cars desireable as head-turners also puts you in a more uncomfortable spotlight for thieves and cops. OCing is similar in that respect; it's uncommon and thus it turns heads of both the public at large and LEOs.Turning headsmay or may not be the purpose (one might argue that if you could legally CC and OCed instead your purpose is to advertise the fact you are armed; not the topic ofdiscussion), but regardless, you are going to catch the attention of LEOs, whose job it is to look for things that are out of place that could indicate wrongdoing. OC by itself is not reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and so the LEO should not simply be able to Terry stop you, but you're going to catch their eye and if they see you doing anything else wrong they can stop you.
    A wild paint job may make them look more closely, but they damn well better not attempt a forcible stop based on nothing more than that.

    I agree with everything you posted.

    They can look all they want. They can even engage me in voluntary conversation, and that has in fact happened to me. The officer wanted to know what I was carrying, and then we ended up talking guns for about 15 minutes. He turned out to bea pretty nice guy and a huge supporter of people carrying firearms.



  22. #22
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    if you fail to give name they arrest under 16-11-36(b) loitering

  23. #23
    Regular Member Fallschirmjger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    if you fail to give name they arrest under 16-11-36(b) loitering
    You may wish to read that section of code again as it seems that you are taking it out of context. Section (b) is dependent upon section (a) which reads - -
    16-11-36. (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

    Section (a) is the offense, section (b) is the circumstances which establish that an offense May have taken place. Merely not giving your name is not sufficient probable cause for arrest under that section of the OCGA. If it were, then people could be convicted for "... manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object..." which could conceivably include gift wrapping Christmas presents so a child doesn't find out what it is before Christmas morning.

    Of course, the old saw is that you can be arrested for eating a ham sandwich in public on a Sunday. Getting a conviction is another matter entirely... as is prosecution for false detainment.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjger; 04-01-2011 at 09:14 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    To All Persons so Interested:

    Open Carry of a Loaded Firearm is Lawful in The State of Georgia, provided; that if The Firearm is Classified as a Weapon, then, such Person needs to have a Georgia Weapons Carry License on Their Person.

    Otherwise..., Georgia is NOT a Stop-and-Identify State.

    The Close Range Exception to Sentence Two is when a Person is Loitering, BUT Case Law under that State Statute and another State Statute Conclude that Failure to Identify is NOT either Loitering or Obstruction, in and of itself.

    aadvark

    *** In Georgia..., Licenses are ONLY needed when State Law Specifically Requires them. ***

    *** Senate Bill 102 would REMOVE AND REPEAL The Requirement Dicussed under Sentence 1, above. ***

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fallschirmjger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    OCGA 16-11-126 (2008 edition)
    16-11-126 (c)
    This Code section shall not permit, outside of his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business, the concealed carrying of a pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm by any person unless that person has on his or her person a valid license issued under Code Section 16-11-129 and the pistol, revolver, or firearm may only be carried in a shoulder holster, waist belt holster, or any other holster, hipgrip, or any other similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the person's clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other closed container. Carrying on the person in a concealed manner other than as provided in this subsection shall not be permitted and shall be a collation of this Code section.
    In the latest version of 16-11-126, the language requiring that the license be carried 'on the person' has been removed.

    It may be supposed that in order to be convicted of violating subsections (a) through (g) of 16-11-126 that it must be proven that the defendant does not possess a valid GWL rather than having the possession of a GWL being an affirmative defense. After all, one may possess a Bible without having to carry it in one's arms 24/7.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •