Perhaps I should have titled this piece “There Is No Firearms Registration in Georgia” because that is the case.  Please understand that this piece is not an argument in favor of or a call for such a system.  It is simply informational.

Frequently, citizens will come by the Sheriff’s Office because they have lawfully received a firearm and want to “register” it. The fact of the matter is that there is no method or mechanism for firearms registration in Georgia.  There is no means to register a particular firearm to a particular person.

In a previous piece about the so-called “gun show loophole“, I discussed the fact that firearms sales by licensed dealers are governed by the same rules whether at a gun show or their normal place of business and that such sales by private citizens are governed by the same applicable laws governing private sales at any other time.  When a firearm passes through the hands of a licensed dealer and is transferred to another owner a form 4473 is completed.  This creates a record of the transaction but it does not “register” the firearm.  In Georgia, private parties can sell a firearms to other private parties without the transaction having to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer.  The laws concerning private sales vary from state to state.

When a gun is traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); the agency is simply going through its records and checking for the form 4473.  This check will only be able to track the instances in which the firearm in question passed through the inventory of a licensed dealer.  It will not track legal transactions made by private parties in states where private parties can sell firearms without having to go through a licensed dealer.  Therefore, if a Georgia resident buys a firearm from a licensed dealer and then sells it in a private party transaction, an ATF trace would show the firearm having been transferred to the original purchaser alone.

While it is understandable that private citizens might confused on this subject, it is troublesome that apparently there are law enforcement agencies in Georgia that get this wrong.  I recently learned of a instance in Georgia in which an agency is refusing to return a recovered stolen firearm to its rightful owner. The agency returned the other recovered items to the victim, but they are withholding the firearm.  The reason they are giving is that the ATF trace shows the firearm as being “registered” to another individual.  I used the plural in the first sentence in this paragraph because I know of at least one other agency using a similar approach.

I wonder if they made the victim show proof of registration for the other items?  Why is it that some items that the victim possessed legally were stolen, recovered, and returned but an item that victim owned legally was stolen, recovered, but withheld?  This is a fundamentally illogical approach.

A recent report was aired by WMAZ out of Macon, Georgia, in which Bibb County School District Police Chief DeCoursey was purported as citing a 2010 revision to Georgia’s weapon carry laws as removing his officers’ authority to direct traffic on streets adjacent to campus properties. It should be noted that the original story at the link has been updated by WMAZ with comments from State Senator Mitch Seabaugh, the primary sponsor of the bill. The video at the link still airs in its original format.

I contacted State Representative Terry England concerning the story. Representative England was in the General Assembly in 2010, and he voted in favor of SB308. He told me that he did not believe that anything in the bill changed the jurisdiction of the campus police.

After viewing the report, I contacted Chief DeCoursey, and asked him to cite the provision in Senate Bill 308 that prohibited officers from directing traffic in front of schools. He cited section 1.4 of the bill and its change in the definition of the term “school safety zone”. He told me that the department’s legal counsel interpreted the definition of “school safety zone” as the jurisdictional boundary for his agency and that the change brought about by the code section revision thus in turn limited his agency’s jurisdiction to the real property boundaries actual campus properties.

I want to make it clear that the conversation was respectful and courteous on both sides and that Chief DeCoursey did not at any time express any opposition to citizens legally carrying firearms. With that being said, I disagree with the interpretation of the law being put forth by the Chief. The cited provision of Senate Bill 308 altered the definition of “school safety zone” as it applied to code section 16-11-1271 O.C.G.A. The code section in question in both its current and former versions pertains only to the carry of weapons. The very words in the code section are “As used in this code section” just prior to defining the term “school safety zone”; therefore, the subsequent definition applies only to the particular code section in question. The code section, past or present, does not address the jurisdictional boundaries of school system police. School system police are established under 20-8-5 O.C.G.A.

I invite the readers of this article to research case law and the relevant code sections and show otherwise.

The entertainment industry paints a picture of constant excitement and a never ending supply of dramatic cases with intricate legal issues.  In reality, the career of a peace officer is filled with mundane tasks making up the general routine, but sometimes a vital legal issue comes along and prompts much discussion.  Unfortunately, this isn’t one of those instances as the subject matter for this article is that of parking on private property.

Here is the scenario: a citizen finds a vehicle parked on their property that has not been authorized to do so.  The citizen suppresses the urge to slash the tires of said vehicle or otherwise damage it as the citizen realizes that this would lead to their own legal troubles.  The citizen then calls for a peace officer to come to the scene.  The citizen has expectations that the peace officer will arrive on scene and justice will prevail.  Unfortunately, Georgia law is rather mute on the issue in that it does not grant peace officers an effective remedy for this citizen’s predicament.  There is a code section that deals with parking spaces provided by merchants (see 40-6-252 O.C.G.A.), but remember, our scenario described a vehicle parked on private residential property.  I can find no code section that authorizes a peace officer to issue a citation or remove the vehicle in such an instance.

To muddy the waters even more, in order for a wrecker company to remove a vehicle from private property, the wrecker company must jump through bureaucratic hoops and register with the Public Service Commission (PSC).  A wrecker company that has not done so may be fined by the PSC.  I know of one company that did indeed receive such a fine in the amount of $2500.00.  Please understand that the above refers to non-consensual tows and not the actual owner of a vehicle wanting to have their own vehicle towed.  You can read more about the non-consensual towing requirements on the PSC webpage as well as here.  Towing companies removing vehicles from private property as part of a law enforcement function such as the recovery of a stolen vehicle or a vehicle being otherwise taken into evidence do not have to be registered with the PSC.

Please note that one of the requirements is that a private property must have a contract in place with a towing company prior to their removing a vehicle.  Furthermore, a private property owner who has a vehicle removed incurs certain reporting requirements as well.  As we have already discussed, a peace officer has no authority to remove a vehicle from private property simply because the owner does not want it there (exception for places of business as cited above).  It is up to the property owner to have a vehicle removed if they so desire.

By now I am sure that some readers are wondering how the criminal trespass code section (16-7-21 O.C.G.A.) applies to such situations.  This code section applies when a person enters onto another’s property for an unlawful purpose or they enter or remain on the land or premises of another after having been served notice by the property owner or an authorized agent not to do so.  The driver/occupants of the vehicle could be then be charged with criminal trespass, but the vehicle would still be on your property.

Finally, it would be a violation of Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) regulations for an agency to use the system to identify such a vehicle’s owner and then provide that information to the property owner. It would be possible for the property owner to go through the Tax Commissioner’s office to obtain such information; however, providing that information would be a decision made by the respective Tax Commissioner.

I am prepared to stand corrected.  If any reader of this finds information to the contrary they are encouraged to bring it to my attention.

I do not intend for this piece to be a pathway into a debate on gun control or any of the applicable laws pertaining firearms sales. I am simply attempting to clarify the actual legal framework involved in a firearms sale. This piece is in response to a political commercial currently running on several of the cable news channels.

The commercial shows snippets of a terrorist asserting that people can simply walk into a gun show and buy fully automatic weapons without any sort of background check. The commercial is sponsored by a group of mayors, and it urges people to contact their congressmen concerning closing the so called gun show loophole.

The simple truth is that those claims are absolutely and totally false. Licensed firearms dealers must follow the exact same rules for selling a firearm at a gun show as they must follow when selling a firearm from their place of business. This is required by federal law, and such sales are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives more commonly known as the ATF. Additionally, state laws regulating the sale of firearms must be followed at a gun show just as they are at a retail firearms shop.

Furthermore, fully automatic and select-fire firearms are Class III items, and as such, they are even more stringently regulated by the federal government and other applicable state laws. In order to purchase a Class III item, a person must be approved by the ATF prior to buying the item, and each item purchased requires specific approval. Part of that approval process includes either the signature of the chief law enforcement officer of the locality where the purchaser resides or the establishment of a legal trust. The process is very time consuming, and each item also incurs an additional $200.00 federal tax. The purchase process of a Class III item is measured in months and not minutes.  Private parties may not sell Class III items directly to another party. The transaction must go through a dealer approved by the federal government to handle Class III items.

The notion that someone can walk into a gun show and simply buy a fully automatic weapon is ludicrous to the point that the person espousing such is either ignorant on the law and is merely parroting remarks made by others, or the person is knowingly and intentionally perpetuating a lie.

Sales between private parties at gun shows are governed by the same state laws and applicable federal laws that apply to a private party transaction elsewhere in the respective state.

The gun show loophole does not exist.

Again, this piece was not intended as a pathway to a debate on gun control. Its intent is to provide accurate information.  This piece is not an argument in favor of or against control measures.

Governor Lester Maddox was a professed segregationist who sold his Pickrick Cafeteria rather than serve black customers, but even he drew the line at speed traps. The town of Ludowici, Georgia, had become so notorious for operating a speed trap that Governor Maddox had billboards erected to the north and south of the town warning passing motorists to be wary of speed traps and clip joints, and he assigned state troopers to guard the signs. This was even covered by Time magazine.

You would think that speed enforcement would be an easy feat to accomplish. It seems pretty simple to assign a peace officer to go sit along a stretch of roadway with a speed detection device with that officer stopping and citing motorist that come along in excess of the speed limit. Well, as with most things government related, common sense and actual reality rarely meet, and this is no exception. There is one law that deals with the actual offense of speeding (40-6-181 O.C.G.A.). However, there are 17 separate state laws that deal with the operation of speed detection devices. If you are a student of history, you know that Lester Maddox was Governor of Georgia from 1967 through 1971. Most of these 17 code sections date back to 1968.

Among some of the requirements in the aforementioned state laws are the requirement for warning signs, visibility of the officer’s vehicle to approaching motorist, rules about where such devices may be used, testing devices for accuracy, etc, but perhaps the one that astounds the general public the most is a requirement that a county, city, or college/university agency have a permit from the state to operate speed detection devices. This permit does not give blanket authority to conduct speed detection throughout the agency’s jurisdiction. Specific streets must be listed on the permit along with their approved speed limit. If the speed limit is changed on a road, the permit for that stretch of road is rendered null and void until the process to have it changed on the speed permit is completed or the speed limit is put back to the limit listed on the permit. The speed permit comes up for renewal every three years, and making changes or additions to it is a very, very tedious process. Operating a speed detection device without the appropriate permit is a misdemeanor offense. The permit requirement does not apply to the Georgia State Patrol.

The requirements for operating speed detection equipment are found in 40-14-1 through 40-14-17 O.C.G.A. You can find the code sections online by clicking here.

I took a class a few years ago taught by a retired precinct commander from the Phoenix (AZ) Police Department. He told a story about taking over a precinct that had experienced numerous murders in the months preceding his getting the assignment. Keep in mind that Phoenix is broken up into eight precincts; so, this was multiple murders in just one precinct of the city in a short amount of time. The Commander told us that he met with community organizations upon taking over the precinct. The number one concern expressed to him was not the high murder rate. Each and every one of the community organizations wanted to know what he was going to do about speeding in their neighborhood.

The point of that story was to point out that speeding is a universal concern. We get more complaints about speeding than anything else, and I expect that a poll of agencies across the country would report likewise. The problem is, provided we have jumped all of the state’s hurdles to get a permit and your neighborhood is on the permit, that we really only have one tool to deal with speeders, and that is to write citations. If we come to an area to enforce the speed limits, we are going to catch people speeding, and this includes your spouse, your children, your neighbors, and maybe even you.

We would rather that people voluntary comply with the speed limits because when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. On the weekend of the first UGA game this year, three of our deputies set up a big, flashing sign warning that speed limits were being strictly enforced. Those three deputies then wrote 80 citations in six and a half hours with none of the citations being for less than 15 miles per hour over the limit including one written for 99 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone.

The tragic death of a not quite two-year-old child on the Georgia 10 Loop has spurred a considerable amount of discussion locally concerning what a driver should do when approached by an emergency vehicle operating in emergency mode.

Georgia law addresses this issue in 40-6-74 O.C.G.A. stating:

“(a) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle or a vehicle belonging to a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency making use of an audible signal and visual signals meeting the requirements of Code Section 40-6-6, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right of way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle or law enforcement vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.

(b) This Code section shall not operate to relieve the driver of any authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.”

At the time that I write this, the wreck is still under review; so, I will not get into specifics of the investigation, and I do not intend this piece to be a criticism of any of the parties involved. I am simply attempting to address the issue in hopes that it will prevent similar occurrences. The general facts of the case are that an ambulance was en route to a call and was traveling on the Georgia 10 Loop, a four-lane divided highway that forms a perimeter route around Athens and passes through Clarke and Oconee Counties. Upon seeing the ambulance, a driver stopped in the roadway and was struck from behind by a pickup truck. A third vehicle was also struck during the collision. The above facts are sufficient for the purposes of this discussion, and I will not delve into the other issues arising from this tragedy at this time.

Pulling to the right and stopping sounds simple, and under ideal conditions it would be easy to achieve; however, ideal conditions would preclude the need for emergency response in the first place. Traffic congestion may not allow for a driver to move immediately to the right and stop. Other mitigating but certainly not alleviating factors are that vehicle manufacturers are producing vehicles that virtually shut out road noise, and the market is burgeoning with communication and media devices that often get used within vehicles creating more distractions. It is not uncommon at highway speeds for the sound of the siren and the emergency vehicle to “arrive” at virtually the same time thus not allowing for much reaction time on the part of drivers. This is why it is important for the drivers of emergency vehicles to not look upon the lights and sirens as creating a magic bubble that will give them instant right of way and a clear path to their call.

Pulling to the right as soon as practicable and stopping until the emergency vehicle passes is the preferred and expected response. Simply pulling to the right and continuing may prevent the emergency vehicle operator from being able to make a right hand turn. If you stop and allow it pass prior to continuing, it should allow enough time and space for the emergency vehicle to make any necessary maneuvers.