Carrying in car without license.

[GeauxLSU]

Touche. And congrats on the Natty brother. That was a hard 4 hours of football for me to watch.

With all the changes since last year, I just hope I have a long memory.

 

[John Monroe]

Do what?

If you are talking about carrying a firearm in a vehicle, there are two age limits, maybe three, which not everyone appreciates. If you look at subsection (a) quoted above, it says [in part] "inside his or her home, motor vehicle,", so if it's "his or her vehicle" the age limits would be 16 for a long gun, and 18 for a handgun, 16 because that's the minimum age to drive....

The kicker that a lot of people overlook, and which gets misstated in a lot of the interwebs is in subsection (d) which very obliquely refers to someone in a vehicle that is not his or her vehicle, i.e. a passenger.... What this means is that by implication, the passenger must be 21, that being the minimum age to be eligible for a GWL.

I think you're reading into the statute what may be the most common scenarios, but not necessarily the only ones. For "his or her motor vehicle," the statute does not say the carrier has to be the driver. Assuming for the sake of argument that a person could get a car titled in his name at any age, a 12-year-old could be in his or her motor vehicle that someone else is driving, and that youngster could have a long gun.

For someone else's car, again, it is not necessary that the carrier be the passenger. I.e., he could be driving someone else's car.

But, and this may be the most important part, 16-11-126 gives a lot of "permissions," but it only criminalizes one thing: Carrying a weapon without a license and without meeting one of the exceptions (i.e., qualifying for one of the "permissions). Under 16-11-125.1, a long gun is not a weapon. So regardless of what you do with a long gun, 16-11-126 does not punish you for it. So my conclusion is that a person of any age can carry a long gun in any vehicle without a license and regardless of eligibility for a license without violating 16-11-126.

 

[gh1950]

I think you're reading into the statute what may be the most common scenarios, but not necessarily the only ones.

You have to consider the audience. There is a low threshold for information overload.

I have seen on other "authoritative" sites statements to the effect that the permission to carry a firearm in an automobile does not apply to leased or borrowed vehicles because it is not "your" vehicle. And that statement has gotten passed around by people who read it and consider it authoritative.

in my opinion this is absurd, because in every other context the vehicle is considered to be under the control of the operator, who has the legal responsibility and liability for what goes on in or with the automobile.

Likewise if Dad furnishes Jr. a family purpose vehicle, that vehicle will be considered Jr.'s while he is operating it, even though the title may be in Dad's name, or even Dad's leasing company name.

 

[John Monroe]

You have to consider the audience. There is a low threshold for information overload.

Yeah, maybe, but glossing over details when it comes to criminal statutes is a dangerous game.

I have seen on other "authoritative" sites statements to the effect that the permission to carry a firearm in an automobile does not apply to leased or borrowed vehicles because it is not "your" vehicle. And that statement has gotten passed around by people who read it and consider it authoritative.

I don't know what it means to be an authoritative site (with or without the quotation marks), but I think those statements probably are correct (see below).

in my opinion this is absurd, because in every other context the vehicle is considered to be under the control of the operator, who has the legal responsibility and liability for what goes on in or with the automobile.

Likewise if Dad furnishes Jr. a family purpose vehicle, that vehicle will be considered Jr.'s while he is operating it, even though the title may be in Dad's name, or even Dad's leasing company name.

I understand your reading of the statute and your opinion of the prior-described statements to be absurd. And that is not an unfair reading of the statute, but by the same token, there is an Attorney General opinion that seems to go with the "absurd" statement. In Official Opinion 73-66, the Attorney General opined that carrying in "the person's own automobile" without a license is legal, but carrying in a "vehicle [that] is not the person's own automobile" without a license is a violation.

It remains to be seen how this would apply in specific factual situations, but if a court bought the AG's opinion, it's not clear that merely being in control of the vehicle would suffice.

 

[NewLeaf]

Yeah, maybe, but glossing over details when it comes to criminal statutes is a dangerous game.

I don't know what it means to be an authoritative site (with or without the quotation marks), but I think those statements probably are correct (see below).


I understand your reading of the statute and your opinion of the prior-described statements to be absurd. And that is not an unfair reading of the statute, but by the same token, there is an Attorney General opinion that seems to go with the "absurd" statement. In Official Opinion 73-66, the Attorney General opined that carrying in "the person's own automobile" without a license is legal, but carrying in a "vehicle [that] is not the person's own automobile" without a license is a violation.

It remains to be seen how this would apply in specific factual situations, but if a court bought the AG's opinion, it's not clear that merely being in control of the vehicle would suffice.

I'm sure glad I live in a more conservative ((Common Sense)) area of GA . Last time I was stopped I told the officer I had more than several firearms in my truck ; his reply was "We ain't worried about your guns.... we just wanted to let you know your tag light is out"