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

[DJAteOhAte]

Damn, why didn't GCO's attorneys think of that?

 

[ilbob]

Damn, why didn't GCO's attorneys think of that?

Maybe they did. They may have felt the statute was so obvious that there was no wriggle room.

Just reading it myself, I came to the conclusion that there is a lack of clarity that is common to a lot of law making.

 

[RDak]

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.

+1, he's an extremely liberal judge.

 

[KBintheSLC]

The people passed a law. The law is constitutional. The judge shouldn't be able to overturn it with no good reason.

They shouldn't, but they do. Just look at the voter-approved ban on gay marriage in CA... the State SC overturned it. Weather or not you agree with gay marriage aside... The fact of the matter is that socialist judges cannot be trusted to uphold democracy... they don't believe in democracy... thats why they are socialists.

The regime they are working towards only benefits societal bottom-feeders, and crooked government officials. I am not surprised that this particular judge did this.

 

[One of Many]

If I understand the decision of this Judge correctly, it was to deny an injunction against the Airport Authorities arresting people for legal carry of firearms in non-secured areas at the airport. The decision did not uphold the airports ability to illegally arrest gun carriers, and there is a case pending that will resolve that issue. What it means is that some people may be falsely arrested prior to the lawsuit being settled in Federal Court.

The current Federal law and the State law does not prohibit gun carry in the non-secured areas of airports in that state. There is an illegal local ordinance the Airport Authority is relying on to justify the illegal arrest of gun carriers. The Airport Authority has asked the TSA to abuse the authority granted to it by Federal legislation, and TSA is still looking into the matter.

The way this thread was started, and with the header that was used, would lead readers to think that the final decision had been made, and the Federal Judge had abused the law to rule against gun owners. Since that does not appear to be the case, why not use this example as a warning to people to be more accurate with facts when starting new threads. We constantly fuss about journalists that post inaccurate and biased information. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the news people do, if we aim to continue complaints about biased news reporting.

 

[DJAteOhAte]

There is an illegal local ordinance the Airport Authority is relying on to justify the illegal arrest of gun carriers.

Actually, there isn’t. There is only airport “policy.” A policy that is not only illegal, it is ephemeral. It is not published anywhere but on signs at the airport and in the heads of those who made it up.

The way this thread was started, and with the header that was used, would lead readers to think that the final decision had been made, and the Federal Judge had abused the law to rule against gun owners.

To be fair, that is the way it has been reported in the media, both locally and nationally. Only later were subsequent stories published that paid lip service to the fact that Monday’s ruling was only on a motion for TRO.

 

[Art Eatman]

So let's wait until the actual courtroom action.