1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Ban at Atlanta AP upheld (AP / Chicago Tribune)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Neo-Luddite, Aug 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Well-Known Member


    Federal judge upholds gun ban at Atlanta airport
    The Associated Press

    3:56 PM CDT, August 11, 2008
    ATLANTA - A federal judge has upheld a gun ban at the world's busiest airport in Atlanta.

    A gun rights group sued the city and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport over the ban, claiming a new state law allowed people with concealed weapons permits to carry guns in certain areas of the airport.

    But U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob ruled Monday that allowing guns at the airport could cause "a serious threat to public safety and welfare."

    The law that took effect last month allows residents who have passed criminal background checks to carry concealed weapons onto mass transit, as well as into state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol.

    Gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org argues the airport qualifies as mass transportation and has restaurants that should be accessible.
  2. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Well-Known Member

    Let's hope GeorgiaCarry appeals this.
  3. JesseL

    JesseL Well-Known Member


    They either got a really bad lawyer or a Judge Marvin Shoob is a really terrible judge.

    Is there any place we can read the ruling?
  4. jrfoxx

    jrfoxx Well-Known Member

    So that gives the feds the right to strike down a state law that applies to state property?

    Why is this even a federal matter, if the part of the airport in question is state property, and it's a state law? where did the feds come in (I'm no legal scholar, so I dont know all the details on how something goes from state courts to federal courts, or how you get a state law challenged directly in federal court instead of state court, etc). Anyone got info on how the feds got involved, and what they are claiming gives them jurisdiction over the state? I'm confused.....
  5. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    GCO filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court.

    I wonder why they chose that route rather than pursuing it in state court.
  6. Mr Weebles

    Mr Weebles Well-Known Member

    Judge Shoob was appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter and is known for his liberal views.

    He might be the worst judge GCO could have ended up in front of.
  7. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member


    Damn, this isn't good.

    Any chance of reversing this?

  8. thunderstorm

    thunderstorm Well-Known Member

    So only the bad guys that are use to breaking the law will be carrying. how dose that make it less a threat to public safety and welfare? time to get a clue judge!!
  9. eflatminor

    eflatminor Well-Known Member

    This is just begging to go up to the Supreme Court. The people passed a law. The law is constitutional. The judge shouln't be able to overturn it with no good reason. "Public safety" may very well be a good reason, but the judge offered no evidence that the law as written would harm the public...that's because there isn't any.

    This will be overturned, IMO.
  10. uneasy_rider

    uneasy_rider Well-Known Member

    I only go to airports when I fly, and when I fly, I have to check my gun. So I am not sure how many people are actually in situations where this law matters.
  11. VARifleman

    VARifleman Well-Known Member

    People picking up passengers that come in.
  12. jgullock

    jgullock Member

    Easy everyone - this was just a preliminary hearing on an injunction to prevent arrest for carrying at the airport until the REAL case gets going. Nothing has been settled. The real case starts in a month or two. DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE MEDIA!:cool:
  13. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Well-Known Member

    This may be telling of a future ruling against us. That may be a good thing. May end up at SCOTUS a lot sooner.
  14. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    The "legacy" of one of America's worst presidents continues to stink after all these years.
  15. jmr40

    jmr40 Well-Known Member

    It is my understanding that the lawsuit was to allow a temporary injunction to allow guns to be carried until the case could be heard in court. The judge today denied that. Unless I am mistaken the case has yet to be heard and guns are not allowed until a decision has been made.
  16. TAB

    TAB Well-Known Member

    Some one acted like a child( running to mommy.)... that what it comes down to.
  17. Telperion

    Telperion Well-Known Member

    Why did Georgia Carry sue in Federal court on a civil rights complaint when a statutory interpretation case in state court (over a state law) would seem the most direct route? :confused:

    And I see from their complaint, Georgia Carry is saying that they should have the right to carry under the militia clause of the US Constitution. :scrutiny: I hope this doesn't end up the next Silveira.
  18. GatorDude

    GatorDude Member

    Pick yer battles wisely.

    I don't think that Georgia Carry chose their battle very wisely here. Generally, the airport is crawling with police and security personnel and the general public does not see the need for a gun at the airport. People can see why you would want a gun on the MARTA transit system, but not at the airport. I'd hate to see a losing proposition set a bad precedent.

    Personally, I'd like to see Georgia governed in such a manner that guns aren't needed. But, the mayor of Atlanta has been cutting police numbers ostensibly to balance the budget.:scrutiny:
  19. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure how much of an effect it had, but there was a great deal of publicity on this issue, from both sides.

    Mayor Franklin and Hartsfield Manager DeCosta made a big stink about "keeping terrorists out" when House Bill 89 passed. They declared Hartsfield a "gun free zone," though on whose authority they did so, I can't say.

    In response, Rep. Tim Bearden threatened to carry a sidearm into the airport in defiance of the edict.

    The whole thing got tons of press. Our side got to expose a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of our local politicians, and the other side got to paint us with an unflattering brush in the ultra-liberal Atlanta Journal.

    I'm sure the Atlanta City Elite made plenty of phone calls to Shoob before he even heard the case. Being a Carter appointee made his decision a foregone conclusion.

    Hopefully, this matter could be retried on the State level, where I think it would stand a greater chance.

    Neither Federal or State law prohibits the law-abiding from carrying in the "non sterile" areas of the airport. This is something the Mayor chose to invoke out of thin air.

    Then again, that's Atlanta for ya.
  20. TAB

    TAB Well-Known Member

    if anything the publicity hurt more then it helped. It also showed how GA, can not handle thier own laws, and had to look to the federal goverment to fix a GA prob.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page