As we are taught from a very young age, ignorance is no excuse. Whether we are talking about the rules of the playground, the laws of the land, or the requirements of your family, it is generally incumbent upon you to keep up with the regulations that surround your life, and ensure that you are operating inside of them (assuming you want to, of course).
However, in a world where our tax code is literally tens of thousands of pages long by itself, it is sometimes hard, if not outright impossible, to keep up with the rules that bound our lives, which more-or-less explains the current froofera over open carry in Georgia:
For nearly a year it has been legal for people with concealed-carry permits to wear their weapons in plain sight as long as they are holstered.
But it still jars many Georgia residents to see nonuniformed residents openly wearing holstered weapons. Local police say they have received numerous panicked calls from clerks and restaurant employees upset about customers openly packing.
All said, the article presents a fairly balanced perspective on the matter, but a few key points stand out in my head.
First, regarding the "panicked calls", "a few" over the course of a year is pretty much inconsequential. Likewise, I have to wonder how many police officer man-hours could have been saved if the 911 dispatch operators were properly trained as to the legality of open carry.
Second, this comment concerned me:
Walker County Associated Probate Judge Kristy Anderson had to check after she was peppered with questions about how guns may be carried.
If the weapon is kept in a holster it’s legal, she said, but even “that’s questionable in the law.”
Far be it for me to tell a judge how to do her job, but either something is illegal, or it is not, and if the distinction is insufficiently clear to make that determination, then you need to unscrew your laws. And while I will confess to not being as well-versed in Georgia laws as I possibly should be, by all appearances (and after a quick-and-dirty dig through Georgia’s state code) open carry is strictly legal, so long as the person carrying has a Georgia Weapons Carry License, or another license recognized by the state of Georgia, in that there appear to be no mandates that one must carry in a concealed fashion. If I am wrong on this, please point it out, though – Georgia’s laws are even more convoluted than Tennessee’s.
Third, this story really worried me:
When police arrived, they asked the man to keep his gun in his vehicle, said Police Chief Dan Bilbrey.
“It was just making people uneasy,” he said. “I can certainly understand someone in … a T-shirt with a gun strapped to their side — it gets your attention.”
Do police officers have the authority to tell someone to go put some piece of their private property in their car? Are you under any compulsion to obey them (apart from the inevitable "contempt of cop" charge that would result if you did not)? And when did "making people uneasy" become an actionable offense? I thought we rather outgrew that with "white" and "black" water fountains / bathrooms. Silly me. And, just to bring us full-circle with the opening lines of this post, ignorance is no excuse for police officers to harass law-abiding citizens who are lawfully exercising their rights – openly carrying into restaurants is perfectly legal in Georgia now, and unless the restaurant staff asks the open carrier to leave, there simply is no "there" there.
This is why it is invariably a good idea for open carriers to also have a voice recorder on their persons (your average smartphone can often fill in if necessary), as well as the pertinent laws in some fashion or another (I have a copy of TN Attorney General’s Opinion 05-154 printed out and folded up in my wallet); neither will necessarily stop an overzealous police officer from doing whatever it was he was going to do regardless, but they could be useful should the circumstances arise.
Just like racial integration, getting people to accept law-abiding citizens openly bearing arms is going to be a long, drawn-out process, but it is an important one nonetheless, and it will invariably lead to a more free society and a country where people can make choices about how they want to keep them and theirs safe. However, until then, we will have to deal with both fellow "average" citizens and law-enforcement "professionals" who are, willfully or accidentally, ignorant of the laws of the land, and it is incumbent upon us to remain calm, cool, and collected in those situations, secure in the knowledge that we are right for lawfully exercising our Constitutionally-protected rights.
Remember, kids: Ignorance of the law is only a valid excuse when it’s the police who are the ignorant ones!
Also, with as many laws as we’ve got on the books, ignorance of most of them is rational.
[...] Creating a panic. Well, among the press and politicos mostly. [...]
I have to wonder how many police officer man-hours could have been saved if the 911 dispatch operators were properly trained as to the legality of open carry.
Unfortunately, the answer is: zero.
In our litigation-happy society, dispatchers (who often know the laws just fine) are generally bound by CYA-policy from on high. Dispatchers make judgment calls all the time, but, “Do I send someone at all?” is not one of them.
Zercool, I would agree with you in general, but properly trained dispatchers (asking the right questions) could help prevent what happened to Erik Scott.
“For nearly a year it has been legal for people with concealed-carry permits to wear their weapons in plain sight as long as they are holstered” – WRONG, it’s been legal for many many years.
“The bill signed into law last year also redefined where guns can be taken, including into restaurants serving alcohol.” – WRONG, HB89 July 1, 2008
“If the weapon is kept in a holster it’s legal, she said, but even “that’s questionable in the law.” – WRONG, SB308 June 8, 2010
Oh boy, a voice recorder on your person! That opens another large can of worms! Whatever the state’s laws are, recording police interactions is Contempt of Cop in excelsis deo.
That judge is just providing a non-answer so that no matter what happens, she’s not “wrong” and can carry on. Nothing to see here.
Much ado about nothing.
Open carry has been legal for many years in Georgia. I started my LE career in Georgia, and it was a non-issue. I witnessed more than one 911 call that was handled by dispatchers asking “I understand he’s carrying a gun, ma’m. That’s legal. Is he doing anything other than that?” I can’t recall being dispatched to a single incident of a “man with a gun” call that wasn’t someone actually committing a crime. (Here in Florida, however, I’ve been to a lot of BS gun calls from panicked people.)
Also, the cops can ask anyone anything. You don’t have to do what I am asking. A likely scenario might have been the business owner didn’t want the gun there, and so the officers were simply mediating the issue. You know, a friendly, reasonable discussion.
It would seem the reporter didn’t research the laws very closely. I know it is popular to pile on cops right now, but one incident where no enforcement action was taken, and no allegations of rude conduct were made, hardly seem to make this article noteworthy.
-Richard
@ wfgodbold: If the police are ignorant about something, it is just a “misundestanding”.
If we are ignorant about something, it is a felony. Go figure.
I am starting to think the various state and US codes need to have a volume restriction, explicitly spelling out number of pages, font size, etc.
@ ZerCool: Really? So if I call about a clown dancing in the street, they are going to send a unit anywise? They have no idiot-checking of the calls whatsoever?
@ The Packetman: Speaking of a prime example…
@ Joe Mama: Thanks for the corrections… it should come as no surprise that an “authorized journalist” screwed up some basics.
@ Ellen: Voice recorders are, of course, subject to state laws… here in TN, so ong as one person is aware of the recording, it can continue, and it explicitly spells out that recording LEOs in performance of their duties is permissable.
Will not stop a jerk with a badge, of course…
@ Mr Evilwrench: So, basically, she is spineless and is being negligent in her duties?
Yeah… I guess there really is nothing to see…
@ Richard: 1. If you think this weblog “piles on cops” unnecessarily, you are barking up the wrong tree.
2. “Noteworthy” is in the eye of those taking note.
Unfortunately, your anecdotes are being counterweighted by other anecdotes – cops are being dispatched to the scene of people lawfully exercising their rights, and time is being wasted. How much, we will probably never know, but any is too much.
The problem with cops “asking” someone to do something is that they are armed, they are wearing a badge, and they have the force of law behind them. So long as the cop in question is not asking for something completely outrageous, it is highly likely that the person they are talking to will do whatever they want, regardless of legality, and I am sure you can see how that might be a… problem.
So, if the cop told you to jump off a cliff…
Linoge – Didn’t mean to imply that this blog piles on. However, there is a lot of it that’s been going on across the InterWebs and that was the intent of my statement.
If you are worried about officers being dispatched to silly things, that ain’t nothing new. I’ve been dispatched to far more complaints about people exercising their rights for non-gun issues than gun issues. Neighbors & passerby complaining on others is not limited to gun rights issues. In fact, throughout the day, we get many calls from people complaining about a neighbor’s grass is too high, has a car parked in the yard, etc.
You know what? We go out on many of them because the complainant is a citizen, and we serve them. Of course, most of the time we tell them that they do not have a valid complaint and go back in service without even bothering the subject of their complaint. Unfounded complaints about gun issues may make the news more frequently (because of the media bias) than other calls that are a waste of time, but they are so very few in comparison. If you want to eliminate people wasting the time of law enforcement, good luck. I really hope you are able to pull that off.
In your ideal world, are cops not allowed to ask questions or ask people to do anything? That is unrealistic, nor is it supported by any law or provision of the US Constitution. I understand that you do not want coercive behavior, but the mere asking of a question does not amount to coercion.
Bluesun -If that partial comment is directed toward me, I would point out that there is a difference between asking and telling.
-Richard
Linoge wrote:
Correct. At least in my agency.
Because it comes down to one of a couple things:
1) The guy is nuts, and potentially dangerous to himself or others.
2) It’s a “quality of life” call, in the same vein as loud music, loitering, etc, and if you thought it was worth your time to call 911 and complain about it, the police are going to treat it as a valid complaint.
@ bluesun: Me, I would tell him to stuff it. But that is me
.
@ Richard: Yes, I would love it if everyone were to stop wasting everyone’s time, regardless of whether we are talking about police or “normal” citizens. But that kind of goes without saying. Likewise, it goes without saying that firearm-related calls like this are in the minority compared to people calling about fast-food joints forgetting their fries, just like it goes without saying that this is a firearm-related weblog and tends to focus on those kinds of topics.
Like I said, noteworthy is in the eye of those taking note.
Conversations, on the other hand, would go a lot smoother if you would refrain from repeatedly jumping to unfounded conclusions. Nowhere have I so much as implied that I wanted to stop police officers from asking questions. I do, however, have some not-insignificant concerns about concerns about police officers asking people to do something, when they have no legal or Constitutional grounds to do so.
Police officers, by dint of their firearm, their badge, and the force of law backing them up, “enjoy” both situational and positional authority, and speaking from some experience in that matter myself, just simple “questions” can lead to all manner of heartache when the person on the other end gets the wrong impression as to the intent of the question.
@ ZerCool: Wow… that is not retarded, exploitable, and generally a waste of everyone’s time… *sigh* As if I needed more examples of a dysfunctional society…
Linoge wrote:
Conversations, on the other hand, would go a lot smoother if you would refrain from repeatedly jumping to unfounded conclusions. Nowhere have I so much as implied that I wanted to stop police officers from asking questions. I do, however, have some not-insignificant concerns about concerns about police officers asking people to do something, when they have no legal or Constitutional grounds to do so.
1. I’m not sure what “unfounded conclusions” I am repeatedly jumping to. Certainly when you state, in part, “The problem with cops “asking” someone to do something…” I could reasonably infer that you are implying police officers should not ask people to do anything. The news article that this post was based on offered no suggestion of coercion by the officers, so I have to assume that there were no complaints from any citizen of any. Evidence to the contrary would be welcomed.
Further, I could also infer that you are implying that unless a police officer has the lawful authority to enforce compliance, that he or she should not ask anyone to do something.
For example, if you are standing in a public place photographing a traffic crash with a dead mother laying on the pavement, I can ask you not to photo the deceased out of respect for the family. I have no lawful authority to order you not to do so. In fact, ordering you not to do so would violate a number of laws and Constitutional protections. Certainly you can tell me to pound sand, and as long as you are not interfering with the rescue crews, you can continue snapping away. But, from your earlier statements, it would appear that you would be against me asking you to not take that photo.
Would you clarify your position?
(I should note, that the stupid laws about photographing/videotaping police officers in public are unconscionable. I shouldn’t have to say that, but figured I better so as to sidetracking the discussion.)
2. If you are merely talking about officers using coercive tactics, I agree with you completely. But, I did not see any suggestion of that in the news article.
3. Regarding the “smoother” part, if you have taken my comments to be confrontational, I apologize. That is not my intent.
-Richard
Hoookay, starting from the top.
My complaint with this situation, at least to the specific level we have drilled down to, is that the police officers in question asked a law-abiding citizen who was lawfully exercising his/her rights to do something that was outside of their capacities to request as police officers.
Somehow, you misinterpreted that (see “unfounded conclusions”) to “are cops not allowed to ask questions”.
I am not sure how much more clear I can get than that.
Speaking as to the matter of coercion, do you not understand that a person wearing a uniform, a badge, a firearm, and all of the associated legal weight that comes from being a sworn police officer is inherently coercive in everything he or she does, simply by wearing those things themselves? Consider: an average stranger asking someone else to go put their firearm in their car, and a police officer asking someone else to go put their firearm in their car. What do you think the acquisence rate for those two examples will be… or, more specifically, will they be different and how?
Is such a request (and, yes, asking someone to do something is a request, just a politely-phrased one) an abuse of power? I believe “yes”, but it is sufficiently far enough down that sliding scale as to not get me too pissed off, but it definitely is worthy of note.
Just a thought if it wasn’t mentioned before…
Your 3rd point… It is possible that the owner/manager of the establishment told officers that he/she did not want this person carrying a (lawful) firearm into his/her business. At this point the police would tell him to store it if the citizen (victim) still wished to patronize the business. It’s just a thought, but a possibility. We don’t know from the story without all of the details. If the officer just decided to tell him that…. different story. To many cops think that they should be the only ones with guns. Believe me. I’m a cop and I see it all of the time. I don’t agree with it, but I see it and hear it often. Not all of them, but enough.
Having read the “back and forth” between Linoge and Richard I answered my initial statement in my previous post. I would like to meet in the middle (with some assumptions:
Assuming the owner/manager did not want the guy carrying in his/her business…
The officer could have opted for this: “He (manager) doesn’t want you carrying a firearm on his property. Since it is private property he has that right. If you wish to do business with him you’ll have to leave the firearm in your vehicle. If you don’t want to do business there anymore, then that is your decision.”
It’s not giving an order, it’s mediation and offering choices.
Does this all boil down to how you say something? I think so. I think both ends here lean a little too much to prove thier point. I think this is a “real world” solution. Asking someone to do something while wearing the uniform, etc is perhaps “passive coersion”, but the difference is in the intent. I’ve asked people to do things in uniform too. I asked with the intent of offering a deescalating solution. Not with the intent of getting someone to do what I wanted them to do. It’s a grey area which is subject to interpretation. I always tried to offer choices rather than suggestions, but that’s just my style.
@ Tac: I completely agree with the ability of uniformed police officers giving citizens a choice of behavior, and an explanation of what the consequences of those behaviors will be – that is non-confrontational and non-commanding. But once they start dictating behavior (outside of whatever they are legally entitled to do), I definitely believe that a line has been crossed.
I also completely agree that the news reporter could have jacked up this entire story… not exactly like that has not happened before…