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

[Neo-Luddite]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-081108-gun-ban-atlanta,0,3648462.story


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.

 

[Cougfan2]

Let's hope GeorgiaCarry appeals this.

 

[JesseL]

Wow.

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?

 

[jrfoxx]

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."

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.....

 

[ilbob]

GCO filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court.

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

 

[Mr Weebles]

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.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


Damn, this isn't good.


Any chance of reversing this?



.

 

[thunderstorm]

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!!

 

[eflatminor]

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.

 

[uneasy_rider]

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.

 

[VARifleman]

People picking up passengers that come in.

 

[jgullock]

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!

 

[txgho1911]

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

 

[Standing Wolf]

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

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

 

[jmr40]

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.

 

[TAB]

GCO filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court.

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

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

 

[Telperion]

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?

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. I hope this doesn't end up the next Silveira.

 

[GatorDude]

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.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

 

[TAB]

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.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I haven't seen anything here that says the whole law was struck, just the part about carrying i an airport.

 

[SomeKid]

Still, going Federal was a massive mistake from the beginning.

State/local owned land, state/local operated, state/local rules applied to that particular area.

yet they sue federally, under the militia clause. The best outcome I see here is that a Federal court boots it to state courts citing the lack of proper jurisdiction for the FedGov. That is best outcome in my eyes. GCO dropped the ball, and its going to hurt a lot of us.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

For those that think GCO "dropped the ball", how should GCO handle the City of Atlanta ignoring state law?

Keep in mind that GCO has already sued the City over this specific issue earlier this year and won.

As for federal court jurisdiction, see Section II of the Amended Complaint, here: http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/Doc 18 Amended Complaint.pdf

See this page for all of the documents filed thus far:
http://www.georgiacarry.com/hjaia/





Also, yesterday was ONLY a hearing about a temporary restraining order against the airport. NO ruling on the nature of HB89 has been made.

 

[ronwill]

The case is still ongoing. IT IS NOT OVER. For more info take a look at the following:

http://www.georgiacarry.org/

 

[Seminole]

allowing guns at the airport could cause "a serious threat to public safety and welfare."

And the evidence for that is what, exactly? :banghead: