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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The way to fight this is with your money. Let every airline, resturant and business that is tied to ATL know that they will not be patronized while this ban is in effect.

If every gun owner would then follow thru and business dropped and revenue fell, you would see the wheels of capitalism work to overturn this ban.

Its worked before with numerous corporations. Money talks, bottom lines and dividents count.

Courts for the most part are a waste of time. More stuff has been accomplished in the board rooms with cashier's checks and briefcases full of money.
 
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.

If that's the case, the article is severely lacking... and totally misleading.
 
Telperion said:
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?

The lawsuit against the City of Atlanta, Atlanta's mayor, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, and the GM at Hartsfield is first and foremost a section 1983 suit. Section 1983 is found in United States Code, the collection of federal laws for the US. 42 USC 1983 allows for civil action for deprivation of rights. Ben DeCosta conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his rights when he promised that State Representative Tim Bearden, the lead sponsor of the law under review and plaintiff in this case, would be arrested if he arrived at the airport lawfully armed. DeCosta and Franklin subsequently held a televised press conference announcing the creation of official policy that would violate a visitors 4th and 14th amendment rights if lawfully armed about the non-secure areas of the facility. This constitutes deprivation of rights. Therefore the lawsuit must be tried in US courts. GCO seeks not only declaratory judgement as to whether firearm carry on one's person is legal at the airport. I believe they want DeCosta and Franklin personally liable for flagrantly violating the rights of Georgians while performing the official duties of their posts. I think this would send a clear signal to other public officials who aspire to attain office and practice social engineering which runs counter to established law.

GatorDude said:
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.

Are we concerned now with what the general public "needs" to see? Or are we concerned with civil rights of Georgians and the rule of law as written into Georgia Code Annotated?

Many thousands of people lobbied their legislators tirelessly to see that this law was written into the books. Those same people, this poster included, are not happy to see their will thwarted by the personally held beliefs of a few appointed officials at the airport and in Atlanta City Hall. Georgia Carry absolutely did the right thing by not standing idle while the rights of Georgians are trampled on by these tyrants. What are you thinking by drawing the public opinion into an equation of rights? We are far past the stage where the public is asked for their input while considering whether certain conduct is permissible. This is purely an issue of law and the disrespect of the legislative process.

Not only that but when did you last fly and was it in the evening? The areas outside the airport is deserted in the night time hours and there isn't anyone, anyone, on patrol outdoors in the lots, etc. Not a single person. A platoon of officers is the least that is needed to police a facility that has several square miles of public grounds, and HJAIA hasn't an armed presence outside the main building. Plus half of the lighting systems are dark in the lots and surrounding areas. I have to disagree in the strongest terms with your assertion that the airport is "crawling" with security and police personnel. Visitors are left most vulnerable while walking to the parking decks in the evening hours and while loading/unloading their vehicles when visitors are few and shadows are long. Besides, there is no legal justification to force me to disarm while there and by doing so place my well being into the hands of an institution that isn't legally obligated to provide for it. May I remind you that the mission of Law Enforcement is first and foremost about the collection of evidence to aid in the prosecution of a criminal, not to protect individual members of the public from befalling victim to violent crime.

GatorDude said:
Personally, I'd like to see Georgia governed in such a manner that guns aren't needed.

Wow. I'm not sure how to respond to such a remark. I will venture to say that in all likelihood, there isn't a place in all of America where this would aptly apply. So I guess Atlanta isn't in bad company.

As others have astutely pointed out, yesterday's ruling was only within the scope of a request for a temporary restraining order for Atlanta to ceast and desist the arrest of license holders until the trial has concluded. In spite of the creative journalistic license of AJC, Chicago Tribune, and others, the battle is far from over. In fact, it's yet to begin in earnest.
 
This was posted by the President of GCO on another forum:

This was a preliminary ruling on extraordinary relief. The main case is still progressing. In other words, GCO asked the judge to order the City of Atlanta to stop arresting people while the case is pending. The judge said no. This is not a ruling on the merits [of the case].

The showdown has not yet occurred. It is not even high noon. It's about nine o'clock in the morning.

This was posted by a member of GCO who is a criminal defense attorney and was present at the hearing:

A federal judge today sided with the city of Atlanta in refusing to issue an injunction to keep the city from arresting GFL holders at the airport. Judge Shoob in his ruling stated that the plaintiffs in their motion did not prove that GFL holders are not criminals nor that there are not federal laws which have occupied the field of airport security.

GeorgiaCarry.org’s attorney John Monroe opened and closed his case on the multitude of briefs filed with the court. The city of Atlanta decided to call a single witness an assistant manager of the airport who testified to the facts that the airport is a very busy place and that an accidental discharge would shut the airport down for hours causing fiscal havoc.

In closing arguments Monroe pointed out the fatal flaws with the city’s position. There is not now a state law which restricts GFL holders at the airport. The city wishes to arrest people for lawful conduct, and the city has already litigated the issue and lost.

Judge Shoob questioned the holding in GCO v. Atlanta and stressed that the issue was limited to parks only.

I think John did an amazing job, against a good defense team and their cheering section on the bench.
 
So the judge didn't issue an injunction. But I still don't how this affects anyone. Say someone brings a concealed weapon into the airport and it is discovered. How are they going to prosecute him anyway? The state has no law anymore, so the state will not prosecute. The federal government never had a law against this. So how would this theoretical CCW holder be prosecuted anyway?
 
So if I fly out of that airport I can no longer carry a firearm in my checked baggage?
Actualy I heard TSA is thinking about a nationwide ban on firearms in airports due to this issue.
Atlanta has asked them to change policy and restrict firearms not only in airports, but parking lots and other airport property.
If guns become banned on all airport property, the ability to legaly check a firearm may change as well.
 
damien said:
So how would this theoretical CCW holder be prosecuted anyway?

The City (who would do the arresting and prosecuting) claim that the new law legalizing carry on “public transportation” does not apply to airports and people carrying at the airport would be prosecuted for carrying at a “public gathering”, the definition of which includes publicly owned and operated buildings in GA.

They also claim that federal laws (which they have been unable to cite in their briefs) trump all state laws on the subject.

It’s very strange that they claim, on one hand, that state law still prohibits carry at the airport while, on the other hand, they claim that a non-existent federal preempts state law.

So far, they have gotten a Federal judge to buy into all this BS.
 
The City (who would do the arresting and prosecuting) claim that the new law legalizing carry on “public transportation” does not apply to airports and people carrying at the airport would be prosecuted for carrying at a “public gathering”, the definition of which includes publicly owned and operated buildings in GA.

They also claim that federal laws (which they have been unable to cite in their briefs) trump all state laws on the subject.

It’s very strange that they claim, on one hand, that state law still prohibits carry at the airport while, on the other hand, they claim that a non-existent federal preempts state law.

So far, they have gotten a Federal judge to buy into all this BS.

Sure, but all the judge did was deny an injunction to preemptively prevent arrests. But, an arrest is not a successful prosecution.

If the city/airport authority actually wanted to prosecute someone, the burden would be on them to prove a crime was committed in court. If they tried to prosecute it in a state court, they would have to cite the law they are prosecuting under, and the state statute now exempts public transportation, which an airport certainly is. If they tried to get a federal prosecutor interested the federal prosecutor would have to rely on the federal law, which is totally silent on the issue (there is no law against it, unless it is in the secure area). Can they arrest someone? Sure. Could they successfully prosecute someone? I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how they could.
 
^^^

Exactly.

Thus, GCO sued the City because threatening to arrest people for perfectly legal activity is a violation of their civil rights.
 
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.
Well, when I had to travel for work last month, I drove a rental car. I had to go to the (non-sterile) area of the airport to pick it up.

There are many ways to do business at an airport on the non-sterile side.
 
As it is my understanding; the TSA doesn't make law pertaining to what goes on in the airports, Congress does backed up by the executive authority of whatever cabinet department the airports fall under.

Since there is the general impression that airport regulation is a federal question, that's why they started in federal court. No sense wasting time in state court on a question that's going to end up in federal court.

Judge Shoob's probably going to be overruled in the end anyway because his quotes sound personal and isn't based on the letter of the law and seems to be based on his personal anti-gun feelings.
 
This is just begging to go up to the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia informs us that "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places" are kosher, so it may or may not pass constitutional muster.
 
@Yokel.

The relevant sections of the law that was passed under the auspicies of Homeland Security very specifically delineates what is and what is not a sensitive area. Basically unless it's a "badge access" area or air side its not regulated by the TSA.

If you go to the GCO web site mentioned earlier in the post you can see the depositions, motions etc laying this out in detail.

As such this most certainly does not pass Scalia's "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places" sniff test.
 
Who's to say that a sufficient number of robed ones won't buy into all the "threat to public health and safety" jazz?
 
DJ,

The answer to your question is simple, take it up in state court. State agency, state employee, state law, state land, STATE issue. I still fully expect this to end at best neutrally for us.

This should have been hashed out at the local/state level first.
 
Their whole case rests on the threat issued by a state employee over state property in contradiction to state law. I expect, at best, the Fed courts to toss this and tell the state to deal with it internally. Why would they do anything else?

Would any of our more well known lawyer members step in and toss a more qualified opinion in? If I am wrong (and you better believe I want to be) could we get the opinion of some other legal minds?
 
SomeKid said:
Their whole case rests on the threat issued by a state employee over state property in contradiction to state law. I expect, at best, the Fed courts to toss this and tell the state to deal with it internally. Why would they do anything else?

The court is already receiving motions, reviewing evidence and holding hearings. It seems pretty clear that there isn't a jurisdictional issue at this point.

If you read the documents that have been filed so far, the issue of jurisdiction is pretty clear.
 
You cannot expect to win every case without actually trying. Sometimes the judge is going to side with the bad guys. I suspect the judge is trying to buy Atlanta some time to back off on its wierd stance, or settle it in some other way. Once he has to actually rule in the case, he is going to have to rule on the facts.
 
Given the things that the judge is reported to have said during the trial, the outlook at this level is not good. However, Shoob is one of the most left-wing and oft-overturned judges in the circuit.

When this goes to appeal, and it looks like it very well could, things will improve.

Also, the GA Senate convened its first meeting of the firearms law study committee yesterday. The Senate is looking to comprehensively overhaul GA’s entire system of gun laws very soon. Hopefully any and all ambiguity in the language and/or intent of the General Assembly will be straightened out in the process.
 
*sigh*

I wish some of that GA legislative sentiment would infect its way into Nashville. I'm tired of watching Naifeh put the smack-down on any bill that might expand the rights of HCP holders and gunnies in general.
 
the one bad thing that i see in this case is that GCO is essentially asking a federal court to rule on a matter of state law. the court may decide that is not part of its purview, and dismiss the whole thing.

the crux of the matter is GCO is saying the state law means one thing, while Atlanta is claiming it means something else. that has to be decided in state court. since there has not been a ruling in state court on this issue, I suspect the federal court will not want to get involved.
 
Ilbob, GCO v City of Atlanta is a matter of illegal detention and property seizure first. Any contention of what GA Code 16-11-127 states is purely incidental to the first issue. That's why the case is being tried in federal courts.
 
Ilbob, GCO v City of Atlanta is a matter of illegal detention and property seizure first. Any contention of what GA Code 16-11-127 states is purely incidental to the first issue. That's why the case is being tried in federal courts.
Its only illegal detention if GA law does not make the carrying firearms at the airport a crime. Thats a matter of GA law, and I doubt there is any case law on it yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top