Airport gun showdown moves to courts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mikebnice

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
72
http://www.ajc.com/business/content...un_showdown.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab


http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/metro/070108/0701decosta.pdf

By JIM THARPE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/01/08

Guns were the issue. But words and federal lawsuits became the weapons of choice Tuesday as Atlanta officials declared Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport a "gun-free zone," and gun advocates immediately retaliated by suing them.

The fight about a new state law — one that permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons in more public places — began at Atlanta's city-run airport, the world's busiest with 89 million passengers a year.

But city officials say they think it could eventually have a nationwide impact.

"This is a matter of national significance," Mayor Shirley Franklin told reporters at a news conference. Permitting guns inside an airport, even weapons carried by permit holders, would create an unsafe environment that "would endanger millions of people," the mayor said.

Franklin vowed Tuesday to lobby Congress and federal officials to mandate that any public facility receiving federal money be declared a "gun-free zone." That would affect airports nationwide.

Franklin's comments followed a vow by city officials to arrest anyone carrying a gun at Hartsfield-Jackson. The city drew a line in the sand on the very same day a new state law easing gun restrictions in public places took effect.

The new law allows licensed gun owners who pass background checks to carry concealed weapons on public transportation, in parks and recreation areas and in restaurants that serve alcohol — all areas that were previously off-limits.

Gun advocates say the new law means people with the proper permits could carry concealed weapons in the non-secure areas in front of the security gates. Federal law prohibits guns beyond the security gates, and both sides agree that guns should be banned there.

"This is about the city of Atlanta once again trying to hold itself above state law," said John Monroe, an attorney for the gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org. Monroe and about half a dozen members of his group attended the morning news conference, some wearing large orange buttons that read: "Guns Save Lives."

Gun rights advocates see the new law as a victory for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Opponents say it has the potential to spawn more violence than it prevents.

Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta said the city's legal team has studied the new law and determined the airport still falls under a "public gathering" exception in the Georgia Code.

"Therefore, firearms are prohibited on airport property," he said.

Monroe came to Tuesday's news conference in the Hartsfield-Jackson atrium and handed Franklin and DeCosta copies of the 10-page lawsuit he had just filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta on behalf of his organization and state Rep. Tim Bearden (R-Villa Rica). DeCosta accepted his copy, but the mayor declined and walked away.

Bearden, a former policeman who authored the new law, said Monday he would come to the airport on Tuesday to pick up relatives and would be carrying a permitted concealed weapon. DeCosta vowed to have him arrested if he did. By Tuesday, Bearden had decided to let the courts decide the issue.

"That showdown will take place in the courts instead of an airport parking lot," said Bearden, who still planned to go to the airport, but without a gun.

The lawsuit accuses city officials of violating Bearden's civil rights by threatening him with arrest.

The suit seeks an injunction to stop the city from searching or arresting people for "legally carrying firearms," and it seeks "reasonable" attorney's fees.

Tuesday's lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions GeorgiaCarry.org has filed in recent months. The organization has been successful in overturning or getting local governments to rescind several ordinances.

GeorgiaCarry.org successfully sued probate courts in Carroll, Henry, Cherokee and Cobb counties for requiring gun permit applicants to give their Social Security numbers. Litigation by the group pushed Athens, Fulton County and Atlanta and several other cities in Fulton to abandon restrictions on bringing weapons into parks.

— Staff writer Rhonda Cook contributed to this article.
 
Gun advocates say the new law means people with the proper permits could carry concealed weapons in the non-secure areas in front of the security gates. Federal law prohibits guns beyond the security gates, and both sides agree that guns should be banned there.

I don't see the issue. I think many people just fail to understand this only involves the unsecure portions of the airport.
The firearms would not be in the "sterile" part of the airport obviously, because that requires going through the security.
They would only be in the possession of people picking up or seeing others off prior to security.

Yet by reading these stories I am sure the average person is given the image of guns being carried everywhere in the airport. Or making thier way onto planes in a way they could not have before.
Nothing has changed!


Firearms are also legaly transported by passengers in checked baggage (per federal law). So firearms are already carried into that portion of most airports of the nation on a regular basis. Perhaps that should be mentioned as well.
 
i have a question. what is public gathering defined as legally?

i always get a bit mift when i go to gun shows, and see signs threatening to arrest me if i dont "check" my weapon because its a public gathering... doesnt the fact that i am PAYING money to be in there, make the PUBLIC gathering argument null and void?
 
You need a lawyer's degree and many years of study to be able to pin down the ever elusive and changing public gathering definition :)
That's one of things we're working to fix since it's so ambiguous.

There was a good thread about is a movie theatre a public gathering with good arguments both ways.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15529


Here's a good definition in layman's terms
http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php Go to Places Offlimits to Carry
 
that has to be the dumbest definition of "public gathering" ive ever read. if you pay money to enter a place that is NOT a sporting event, it should be "private". obviously there are exceptions, school functions, etc. but still. really dumb law.
 
Breaking news:


Army veteran arrested in his home for possessing a handgun in a federally mandated "gun Free Zone". A law passed by Congress stating that anyone or any place that receives federal money is mandated a gun free zone and authorities believe that since this veteran receives a VA disability check, his home by law is a gun free zone.


I can see it coming
 
Federal money is MY money so why should the receipt of "federal" money be a factor in any restriction.

:fire::fire::fire:
 
Here is the relevant code of the Public Gathering provision of GA Code that is the basis of Tim Bearden's lawsuit against Atlanta, Frankin, and DeCosta.

Section 4 of HB89 revises 16-11-127(e) to read:

(e) A person licensed or permitted to carry a firearm by this part shall be permitted to carry such firearm, subject to the limitations of this part, in all parks, historic sites, and recreational areas, including all publicly owned buildings located in such parks, historic sites, and recreational areas and in wildlife management areas, notwithstanding Code Section 12-3-10, in wildlife management areas notwithstanding Code Section 27-3-1.1 and 27-3-6, and in public transportation notwithstanding Code Sections 16-12-122 through 16-12-127; provided, however, that a person shall not carry a firearm into a place prohibited by federal law.

Section 9 of HB89 states:

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

Understand that publicly owned buildings are still off limits to GFL holders except those places specifically mentioned by name in HB89. This includes airports in the category of public transportation.

The Mayor's contention is that the Airport is a public building, and as such, is on the list of prohibited places for firearm holders to possess their weapons. Act 9 removes the conflict between the still-existent public buildings prohibition and what is stated in act 4. I think her counselors haven't formed a solid understanding of how all the pieces fit together to exempt all but the sterile parts of the airport from the PG clause.

Last but not least, let us not forget that Rep. Bearden is the author of HB89. I think he is the authority to whom a casual observer should defer when debating the legislative intent of the bill.

Reference: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb89.htm
 
Yet again anti's are ignoring the fact that what has got them so worried isn't new and hasn't had any of the dire repercussions they predict. Legal carry in non-sterile portions of airports has been done in other places and caused zero problems.

Airport carry has been legal here in AZ for quite some time and if it has endangered millions of people, nobody has complained.
 
"This is a matter of national significance," Mayor Shirley Franklin told reporters at a news conference. Permitting guns inside an airport, even weapons carried by permit holders, would create an unsafe environment that "would endanger millions of people," the mayor said.

Terrorists crashed jetliners into skyscrapers and killed about 3,000 people. The U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing approximately 80,000 people. Law abiding citizens with concealed handgun permits waiting for their friends and loved ones at the baggage claim are a threat to millions? How do these people get elected?
 
JesseL, waterhouse, and others are right. I carry--openly--in the dirty (non-sterile, that is) area of Sky Harbor International all the time. Not only don't millions die, nothing at all happens.
 
Any predictions as to trouble from legal carry in airports is just foolishness. We have that in Washington and it has been this way for many years.

From Washington state law RCW 9.41.300 Weapons prohibited in certain places - Local laws and ordinances - Exceptions - Penalty. (non relevant sections omitted)

". . . (e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in that area."

It works here and it will work in Atlanta.

Bill.
 
Interesting filing. Not only are the usual/expected complaints included, but also addressed is the Militia Clause (plaintiff is male 18-45 and thus recognized by Congress as having certain rights), and an observation that the restriction impacts property rights (permit is/allows property, which is allegedly & improperly prohibited).
 
Firearms are also legaly transported by passengers in checked baggage (per federal law). So firearms are already carried into that portion of most airports of the nation on a regular basis.

You'd be surprised at how few people know about this.

-T
 
Y'all have to understand that our mayor loves to declare silly laws and get slapped down in court. She did the same thing recently by banning carry in Atlanta city parks and got thumped by the fine legal minds of georgiacarry.org. I'm just thankful we have GCO to go after these highly intelligent folks...
 
You know.. why doesn't the state just nto send in the state police and arrest the mayor, and all involved?

Oh, and I notice the vaginal discharges in teh media are not reporting truthfully on the criminal behavior of the mayor and the airport leadership. Not that i'm suprised by that.
 
Breaking news:


Army veteran arrested in his home for possessing a handgun in a federally mandated "gun Free Zone". A law passed by Congress stating that anyone or any place that receives federal money is mandated a gun free zone and authorities believe that since this veteran receives a VA disability check, his home by law is a gun free zone.


Ok following this a little more... does this mean anyone receiving a Social security check is living in a gun free zone ... just gets dumber as it goes.

Gov't has lost its mind.
 
"Permitting guns inside an airport, even weapons carried by permit holders, would create an unsafe environment that "would endanger millions of people," the mayor said."

YOU are endangering millions of people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top