Proposed New TSA Gun Ban Threatens Your Right To Self-defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
591
Location
New York NY
TSA Deciding On Whether To Ban Guns In Airports

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place
Suite 102
Springfield VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

You may not have been watching the battle that is brewing over concealed carry in the Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, Georgia, but it may end up affecting you where you live.

Because of what's happening in Atlanta, the Transportation Security Agency could decide to allow airports across the country to ban firearms in areas that currently allow for self-defense.

It all began when Georgia passed a new law allowing permit holders to carry guns onto state parks, into restaurants that serve alcohol, and onto mass transit (such as the non-surveillance areas in airports).

The Hartsfield-Jackson airport responded by defying the state law and banning firearms throughout the entire airport, including areas where drivers pick up passengers.

This has resulted in a court battle, where presently, a federal judge ruled in favor of the airport's ban. Now, the TSA may step into the fray by permitting airports across the entire country to ban firearms in those locations that are outside of the boarding areas.

Federal law prevents passengers from bringing firearms past airport checkpoints. But in many states, passengers are allowed to bring guns and knives into areas such as the pick-up points and the main terminal. This is what could change very soon.

"Any decisions we make that affect (Atlanta) could affect every other airport in the country," said TSA spokesman Christopher White to USA Today(8/7/08).

What's at stake here is not the ability to take guns past surveillance points. What's at stake is the right of self-defense outside of these areas-- especially where drivers are either dropping off or picking up passengers.

In other words, drivers who have permits are the ones who would be affected the most because they would now have to leave their guns at home -- thus contradicting the very reason they got a concealed carry permit in the first place... the fact that they wanted to carry their guns outside of the house.

ACTION: Please urge President Bush to put the squeeze on the TSA. This president should certainly understand the bad-politics of imposing a gun ban right before an election. You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send Pres. Bush the pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Mr. President: The August 7 issue of USA Today reports that the TSA is considering letting airports across the country ban firearms in areas that currently allow for self-defense.

What's at stake here is not the ability to take guns past surveillance points. What's at stake is the right of self-defense outside of these areas-- especially where drivers are either dropping off or picking up passengers.

In other words, drivers who have permits are the ones who would be affected the most because they would now have to leave their guns at home -- thus contradicting the very reason they got a concealed carry permit in the first place... the fact that they wanted to carry their guns outside of the house.

I hope that you will rein in the rogue TSA and prevent them from making such a foolish decision -- if not for the Second Amendment, then for the sake of your own administration and party. You must understand how harmful it would be to impose a brand new gun ban in an election year, when the campaigns of people like Al Gore and John Kerry have amply demonstrated that the gun rights issue can cost a party dearly.

Sincerely,
 
If this gets passed, I see TSA pushing for no transportation of firearms at all by airlines...

If they banned from the airport, TSA will consider even guns in locked cases, the same as carrying a firearm.. this far more reaching than just carrying in airports.
 
Last edited:
With the June 26 Supreme Court decision that the right to keep and bear is an individual's own constitutional right, there are automatically more restrictions on how government may regulate the carrying or firearms than there were previously. This kind of thing would have been a lot easier to pass before June 26 than it will be now.
 
Dear Mr. President: The August 7 issue of USA Today reports that the TSA is considering letting airports across the country ban firearms in areas that currently allow for self-defense.

What's at stake here is not the ability to take guns past surveillance points. What's at stake is the right of self-defense outside of these areas-- especially where drivers are either dropping off or picking up passengers.

In other words, drivers who have permits are the ones who would be affected the most because they would now have to leave their guns at home -- thus contradicting the very reason they got a concealed carry permit in the first place... The fact that they wanted to carry their guns outside of the house.

I hope that you will reign in the rogue TSA and prevent them from making such a foolish decision -- if not for the Second Amendment, then for the sake of your own administration and party. You must understand how harmful it would be to impose a brand new gun ban in an election year, when the campaigns of people like Al Gore and John Kerry have amply demonstrated that the gun rights issue can cost a party dearly.

Sincerely,

----------------------------------------------------------

There was a grammatical error and a spelling error. Fixed now.
 
The Hartsfield-Jackson airport responded by defying the state law and banning firearms throughout the entire airport, including areas where drivers pick up passengers.

Have you ever noticed most of the serious evil in history starts with one government edict or another?
 
Frankly, TSA jurisdiction should end at the line to get into the metal detectors. The rest of the airport belongs to the city, not the feds.
 
Frankly, TSA jurisdiction should end at the line to get into the metal detectors. The rest of the airport belongs to the city, not the feds.
IIRC, Hartsfield is privately owned. The Feds just oversee operations.

TSA is run by DHS. I suppose they could ramrod a ban through pretty easily, in which case, carrying in an airport parking lot would be a Federal offense.

Such a ban would be a much harder fight than Heller. The Heller case was a challenge to the Constitutionality of one city's ban; this will be a challenge against the Federal government. As soon as they start chanting things like, "post-9/11 world" and "terrorism," our argument gets very difficult.

Even if a Circuit court was willing to accept Heller as precedent, the SCOTUS majority opinion explicitly states:

(...)our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings [p. 57]

The more I think about this, the more worried I'm getting.
 
Tom Servo said:
IIRC, Hartsfield is privately owned. The Feds just oversee operations.

According to the Complaint in GCO v. Atlanta, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport is a public airport owned and operated by the City of Atlanta. Which means that it is subject to the laws of Georgia that state any laws restricting firearms may only be passed in the Georgia General Assembly.

As others have pointed out, the TSA initiative pursued by Bennie Thompson has far reaching implications beyond just Hartsfield. I see it as yet another case of the gun-grabbers chipping off our IIA freedoms one increment at a time.
 
Straight from the airport's site:

"Official Shortened Name/Code:
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport / ATL

Ownership/Operator:
The City of Atlanta / Department of Aviation"
 
Sounds actionable on all sorts of levels: 2AD; interfering with interstate commerce; etc.
 
Even if a Circuit court was willing to accept Heller as precedent, the SCOTUS majority opinion explicitly states:


Quote:
(...)our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings [p. 57]

The more I think about this, the more worried I'm getting.

Indeed, "sensitive places" affords considerable latitude and can be interpreted to fit any given political or social bias.

It is not the least bit clear how much of a boon the Heller decision will be for private citizens who wish to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top