So lets suppose...

[bearpugh]

concealed pistol is a no no if your under 21. the rifle is fine.

 

[drtybykr]

Probably make the LEO curious and a little nervous, but as long as you did nothing wrong it would be OK.
I might would ask you to step out of the car and finish the stop away from the car.
Every thing could change if you seemed nervous, aggressive or overly defensive so just be yourself. Most of us are gun nuts too. I expect folks to be nervous and a little annoyed on a stop.
Before this starts I will say I know some LEOs that will remove the gun from the car and run the numbers every time. I don't personally agree with that but the SCUS has upheld that for generations. I just feel that it is unnecessary in most cases.

BTW I don't see where class III makes any difference.

 

[redwood87]

Sounds cool, I've been hesitant of carrying just because I'd hate to have misinterpreted the law. I don't keep it loaded so I guess an unloaded rifle wouldn't seem too abrasive.

 

[protective measures]

concealed pistol is a no no if your under 21. the rifle is fine.

^^ He's steering you right.
In Ga., you may own a pistol under 21 but 18 or over ( as long as you have a clean record),but you're not supposed to carry it in your vehicle yet.
At 21 & legal to own a firearm ( incl. pistols) you may carry w/o a permit in your house, vehicle, & place of business as they are considered your "habitation" or extensions thereof.
Your place of work may have company policies against carry that some feel are unlawful but thats between you & your employer when you're 21 or over.
The guys at www.georgiacarry.org are a terrific resource on these subjects... get on their site & check them out.

 

[jawjadawg]

So visible evidence of a firearm is justification for search and seizure? That must be the case if it is within the officers rights to enter the vehicle, take the firearm, and then run the numbers. If it is leagal for me to carry a firearm in an open manner in my vehicle, then what about that action provides justification for the officer to enter the vehicle and remove the firearm? I'd like to see that one challenged under our current Georgia gun laws. What is it about a firearm that makes it any different from any other personal item once it has been established that the individual is within his rights to possess the firearm and is doing so in a legal manner?

 

[BEAUBE]

Amen to that. Im sure that a legal firearm does not fall under the in plain view law. So I'm curious as to what gives them the privilege to remove a firearm from the vehicle. Is it comparable to stop and frisk for weapons for the leo safety?

 

[Ken Ford]

How is it established that the gun and driver is legal?

You check.

 

[drtybykr]

Is that the same as guilty until proven innocent?

http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm

 

[Ken Ford]

Amen to that. Im sure that a legal firearm does not fall under the in plain view law. So I'm curious as to what gives them the privilege to remove a firearm from the vehicle. Is it comparable to stop and frisk for weapons for the leo safety?

Yes it does, but it should based on an articular suspicion. That can be as little as an angry or aggressive attitude.
Remember the stop itself is a Seizure. As long as it is brief and reasonable that seizure is called a detention.
I think it is widely overused but the SCUS has sided with the officer on safety no matter how slight. Also a brief inconvenience such as moving the weapon is not a seizure.
Like I have stated over and over again, I feel that most of the time there is no need to remove/ run a gun JUST because it is there. However if needed I will not take any chances.

 

[Ken Ford]

Is that the same as guilty until proven innocent?

http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm

The officer in that case admitted to having no legal or articulable reason to retrieve the gun. I have repeatedly said there has to be a reason for the officer to take any further action. It may be a small reason, but it has to be reasonable and articularable.