Can you legally carry on the job at non permissive workplace?

[gh1950]

I could be wrong but I thought GA was like FL, where you can't be sued in civil court iof you are cleared or not charged in criminal court.

.

\

Wrong.

Two different standards of proof.

 

[T-Roy]

I could be wrong but I thought GA was like FL, where you can't be sued in civil court iof you are cleared or not charged in criminal court.



The way I understand it is that they can restrict it if it's on property owned by the company. I found the quote below here: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resour...vate-premises-despite-new-guns-everywhere-law


Despite the new law, Georgia employers still may prohibit possession of firearms on their premises as long as the employer is the property owner or has legal control of the property. The law does not restrict “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 the private property” — such persons may continue to bar firearms from their property.

In addition, employers who own their employee parking lots can exercise the rights of property owners. Under the 2008 “Parking Lot Bill,” any employer that owns property on which employees park their vehicles may restrict access to their property as a property owner. Such an employer also may search employees or guests in a lawful manner. Employers that do not own their employee parking lots may search employee vehicles for weapons under certain circumstances. Moreover, employers have the right to prohibit employees who have completed a disciplinary action, or have one pending, from bringing a concealed weapon onto company property.

Maybe it was because the strip centers own most of the parking lots. At my current job I'm required by law to carry a gun, so they can't say crap to me. It's supposed to be a 22 (licensed trapper) but something bigger always seems to end up with me.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[spencer60]

\

Wrong.

Two different standards of proof.

There's always a difference in that between civil and criminal.


Here's the law: We do have civil immunity in GA from what I'm seeing here...


Title 51. Torts
Chapter 11. Defenses to Tort Actions
Article 1. General Provisions.
§ 51-11-9. Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.

 

[gh1950]

There's always a difference in that between civil and criminal.


Here's the law: We do have civil immunity in GA from what I'm seeing here...


Title 51. Torts
Chapter 11. Defenses to Tort Actions
Article 1. General Provisions.
§ 51-11-9. Immunity from civil liability for threat or use of force in defense of habitation

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.

That's not immunity, it's a defense, even though it is titled that.

The judge or a jury still has to decide if use of force was "justified". The difficulty in a civil case is getting a judge to bifurcate the proceedings and decide the "immunity" question separate from the liability issues in the lawsuit. Actually the problem exists in criminal case. No where in Georgia law is it set out how you have to assert the "immunity" and when and how the issue is decided.

Georgia Court of Appeals,

In his brief on appeal, he relies on OCGA § 16-3-23 as supporting the trial court's denial of the motion. That statute permits the defense of habitation to a criminal charge and is now, since the trial here, expressly available by statute as a defense to a tort action. OCGA § 51-11-9, effective July 1, 1986. Ga.L.1986, p. 515.

 

[spencer60]

True, it's all based on you winning the criminal case.

But I think I get what you're saying. It's not so much that a civil suit can't be brought against you, but that the law gives you a good defense if you end up in one.

 

[cjnowell72]

Carry where ever im not going thru metal detectors. Rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6. Thats why they make small pistols and auto for easy conceal

 

[DTM Builder]

That reminds me, last time I put a few rounds through my pocket 380 there was so much lint in the bore that the first shot looked like someone had thrown a roll of toilet paper in a wood chipper.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

LOL That's what my SCCY does when I shoot it at he range occasionally. I purposefully let it get covered in undie lint, to make sure it will function in that condition.

 

[coach482]

Here, Customers can carry, employees can not.

 

[sheep dog]

Here, Customers can carry, employees can not.

Is "here" a reference to your place of work or are you referring to any place of business (non permissive) in the state of Ga?

 

[Jblue]

I've been wearing a .32 here at Piedmont hospital for the past year. As long as no one lifts my shirt I figure I'll just worry about it when it happens.