Firearms Registration in Georgia

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.

IALEFI Master Instructor Development Program

Recently, I had the opportunity to complete the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI) Master Instructor Development Program. This course was sponsored by the Georgia Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (GALEFI) and was held at the Clatyon County Police Department range. All participants in the class are currently firearms instructors, and true to IALEFI being an international organization, there were a several participants who teach outside of the continental United States.

The program is a 24 hour workshop with eight hours devoted to pistol, rifle, and shotgun respectively, and the rifle and shotgun portions included some transition to handgun drills. Most of the drills were conducted on a par time standard, and there were quite a few drills run on a competitive basis.

One of the participants in the course was Erik Lund, a USPSA Grand Master (top five percent of shooters in USPSA). Erik was a good sport in the face of friendly but merciless harassment for the duration of the course. Erik was also nice enough to let an out of shape Chief Deputy type sneak up and beat him on a drill (sorry Erik, you know I had to include that ). The drill is called “The Crucible”. It consists of a pistol loaded with two rounds with a reload magazine with four rounds. At the start signal, the shooter draws and engages the IALEFI-Q target with two rounds to the head, performs an emergency reload followed by four shots to the body all from a distance of five yards. Erik’s time was a 4.92, and mine was a 4.87 for a whopping .05 second win. He turned it up after that, and I didn’t beat him again, but I do now claim the title of “the guy that shot next to Erik Lund”. This was the first drill that we shot on the pistol day. We shot it again at the end of the day. He got his score down in the 3.3 seconds range. My time on the second run was a 3.89 seconds, but one of my shots was an eighth of inch outside of the circle for the head shots.

While we did some accuracy work, most of the pistol drills were focused on speed based on the adage that most law enforcement shootings consist of three to five rounds fired at three to five feet in a time frame of three to five seconds. Some of these drills consisted of one shot and two shot draws at five yards on the clock. The par time standard for a one shot draw was 1.25 seconds, and my time being .89 seconds, and the par time for a two shot draw was 1.75 seconds with my time being a 1.14 seconds. Other drills consisted of shooting on the move and one handed shooting.

In the rifle portion of the class, we began by checking to make sure our rifles were zeroed properly. We then worked through a series of drills involving one-handed manipulation, multiple targets, grounded weapon, support side shooting, and shooting on the move. We did weapon transition drills in which dummy rounds were randomly loaded into our magazines. As we proceeded through the drills, anytime we got a failure to fire due to our rifle feeding a dummy round, we transitioned to our pistols to complete that drill.

For decades, the shotgun was the prevalent shoulder weapon available to peace officers. Traditionally it consisted of a pump action shotgun with a cylinder bore barrel and buckshot and maybe slugs. In recent years, the patrol rifle has supplanted the shotgun, but the shotgun still has a place due to its versatility. In addition to buckshot and slugs, the shotgun is also capable of delivering a wide range of less-lethal munitions.

Our drills with the shotgun also mostly revolved around speed, but we also concentrated on some one-handed manipulation and transition to handgun drills. One drill that we did on the clock involved five steel targets. We were loaded with four rounds in the magazine and had to put one shot on each target with the fifth round being a combat load. My time on this was 3.88 seconds shooting a Remington 870P. This was topped buy another participant who was also shooting an 870P. He broke the 3.0 second barrier, and the aforementioned Erik Lund did it in 2.5 seconds shooting a Benelli semi-auto.

We finished up with an extremely fun drill called Rolling Thunder. We formed teams of five shooters. Each shooter started with a loaded pistol and one round in their shotgun. On start signal, the first shooter fired their shotgun round, then it went down the line. After each shooter fired their shot, they combat loaded two rounds. When the fifth shooter fired, they gave a “clear” command and it started over with each shooter firing their two shotgun rounds. This continued all the way through the combat loading of five rounds, and on the final relay each shooter combat loaded one round and when their turn came they fired their shotgun round and transitioned to their pistol for one round.

All in all this was a very good experience. Some of the material was dated, but the friendly competitiveness on the firing lane more than made up for it. The shooter that you were competing against one moment was legitimately trying to help you improve the next. The professional connections made were invaluable. I already have commitments from several of the other instructor for some training for the Sheriff’s Office, and I brought back quite a few ideas to improve our own in-house training.

Senate Bill 308 and Traffic Direction

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.

Private Property Parking Issues

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.

Gun Show Loophole?

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.

A Weekend of Wheelguns

I attended the academy starting in January of 1999, and at that time only two agencies in our region were sending cadets to the academy with revolvers. As of now, I do not know of any agencies outside of some correctional institutions that still issue revolvers as primary duty weapons. Outside of small, pocket sized revolvers, it isn’t common to run across a citizen choosing a revolver as their personal carry firearm either, and I must confess that I am firmly in the Glock camp as my choice for duty and personal carry; however, when I wear my class A uniform, I have taken to carrying a revolver because they are simply put: classy. It is just hard to argue against or not appreciate the elegance of a vintage Smith & Wesson revolver.

I feel that I must make the point that the revolver is still a viable personal carry or home defense weapon; however, the firearms industry has so strongly shifted towards polymer frames that revolvers and even metal frames pistols to a certain degree have decreased in market presence while increasing in price thus pushing them further out of the current mainstream, the venerable 1911 excepted of course. Furthermore, Smith & Wesson’s caving to the lawyers and the California legislature by manufacturing new revolvers with built-in key locks has led to the drying up of the once plentiful trade-in supply of affordable revolvers.

Take heart wheelgun aficionados, the revolver has not completely faded from the shooting world as evidenced by this past weekend’s Wheelgun Championship in Gainesville, GA, at the Cherokee Gun Club. As I mentioned in a previous piece, late last year I began shooting competitively on a regular basis, and I could not pass up the chance to shoot major match geared towards the venerable revolver, especially with it being in such close proximity.

The Wheelgun Championship is a sanctioned match of the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA). IDPA matches are broken down into five divisions based upon the type of pistol the shooter is using, two of which are revolver divisions, and the divisions are further broken down into classifications based upon the shooter’s skill set as determined by performance on a standard classifier course of fire and performance at sanctioned matches. Shooters compete against shooters within their own division and class. Shooters may earn a classification “bump” through various performance formulas. This was the first sanctioned match in which I have competed.

Although I have an affinity for wheelguns, I have very little true experience in actually shooting them, much less in a competitive environment or under stress. In fact, my classification going into this match was two levels below the level at which I compete with my Glock. For this match, I used traditional basket weave leather duty gear rather than the more customary kydex rigs seen at such events. After all, if you are going old school, you need to fully commit. I also shot a stock Smith & Wesson 586 revolver. Some of the shooters had more invested in the gunsmithing on their revolvers than I have invested in my entire setup.

At this point, I need to give a plug to Tom McElwayne of the Shooter’s Den in Watkinsville for putting together the ammunition that I used in the match. Tom being the perfectionist that he is went to great lengths to make sure I had quality ammo to use in the match.

As for the match itself, it was a long, long match consisting of 18 stages and over 175 rounds fired. The various stages contained shots at short, intermediate, and longer distance, and it had some stages that required multiple reloads. It was a good test of a shooter’s overall skill with a revolver.

I am happy to report that I won my classification in the Stock Service Revolver division. I also beat half of the field in the next higher classification and earned a match performance “bump”. I was the third most accurate shooter among the revolver shooters as well, which is what lead to the win as my times were on par with the other shooters. More importantly, I had a great time and met a lot of good people.

My Response to Competive Shooters

Late in 2010, I began began to shoot competitively on a regular basis. I am typically shooting two matches per month and sometimes three. A frequent theme that I hear professed or see posted online by competitive shooters is snide references to their perceived lack of accuracy on the part of peace officers when involved in deadly force situations. These statements both amuse and miff me at the same time. This piece is my response to those who have such a mindset as I would like to put some perspective into play.

Truth be told, the percentage of peace officers that are “gun people” is rather low. By “gun people”, I mean those people who actively participate in voluntary training and become true students of the art of shooting. Unfortunately, on a profession-wide basis, the standards for qualification are too low, and too many peace officers are satisfied with turning in a passing score on the range only to not come back to the range until the next mandatory qualification day. Simply put, too many peace officers view qualifying and training (note I make a distinction as they aren’t the same thing) as a necessary evil. Where the competitive shooters make a mistake of logic is that they tend to look at peace officers as a single entity while discounting that the percentage of competitive shooters compared to the proverbial average gun owner is actually quite low as well.

The typical pistol match involves either a set course of fire that is known to the shooters, or the shooters are briefed and get a walkthrough of the stages prior to their run. Competitors know when they go to a match that they will be involved in a shooting activity. Competitors get to pick their firearm and ammunition and all of their equipment within the rules of their respective sport, and said ammunition usually consists of low recoiling loads, and the firearms are often modified. Shooting “non-threat” targets results in a time or points penalty, and the targets don’t shoot back. Contrast all of that with the fact that peace officers are usually get a standard issue firearm with modifications prohibited by the ever present liability fears. The ammunition issued to the peace officer is defense loads designed to stop threats and not simply punch holes in paper, and while we all accept the fact that any call may be the call that erupts into a gunfight, I have yet to read an after action report from a shooting in which a range officer asked the peace officer if they understood the course of fire, if they were ready, and then activated a buzzer to signal that the shooting could commence. Oh yeah, the bad guys do shoot back, and shooting those innocent bystanders and hostages brings a whole host of consequences.

I propose the following: I’ll post a sign up sheet for all of my competitive shooting friends, and sometime between now and in the next 20 years I’ll set up a surprise scenario and spring it on you with no advanced notice or walkthrough. We’ll figure up your score and establish a true baseline for comparing the combat accuracy of peace officers and competitive shooters. It’s only fair, right?