Posted on 07/09/2008 12:09:11 PM PDT by mikebeam
judge Tuesday for a temporary order stopping officials from arresting anyone caught with a weapon.
GeorgiaCarry.org filed a federal lawsuit July 1, the day a new gun law took effect in Georgia
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
So they want to pack at the airport? Hmmm. . .not sure how I feel about that. How do the security people know who is a law-abiding citizen and who is a nutjob coming in to make some sort of political statement?
To be honest, I’d be more fearful of the security people than the nutjobs. Least I know the nutjobs are just trying to kill me, who knows what the heck the security people will do. Get the feds /out/ of the airport and put security back into the hands of the airlines and make them immune to all discrimination lawsuits if denial is based upon a security belief.
How about a law-abiding citizen coming in to make some sort of political statement?
They don’t, but it doesn’t make any difference. Do you really think if guns are prohibited at the ariport that will keep a “nutjob coming in to make some sort of political statement,” from bringing a gun and doing just that.
At least if the decent citizens are allowed to be armed to defend themselves, any potential nutjob will probably pick some less dangerous (to him)—like a schoolyard.
Hank
They don't. My understanding is that the authority to carry concealed at the airport is limited to the areas outside of the TSA security checks. Law-abiding people would be permitted to be armed in the same areas that terrorists can presently be armed without having been subject to inspection.
The Constitution, and in this instance, the Georgia State law itself is what matters.
If either group, or the electorate themselves, do not like the Constitution or the laws they are free to push for a change.
We have to get people away from the notion that they can pick and chose which laws to honor, as well as the idea that the way to deal with a Constitutional right or a law they don't like is to find a judge that can declare words and laws do not mean what they say.
Think about all the people who are unhappy with the Supreme court over the recent 2nd Amendment case.
They wring their hands and declare that the right mix of judges would have eliminated our 2nd Amendment rights.
They don't care what freedoms the US Constitution recognizes - they just want a judge to see their way and reinterpret the written word.
Assuming they have to go through a security scanner, it would make it less likely. If they don't go through a scanner, then of course not. (But then, this whole big announcement about bringing a gun to the airport didn't need to occur. He could have just taken it with him and no one would know.)
Personally, I think it is silly to make a big announcement that you are going to carry a gun to the airport. If you don't have to go through a security scanner, just take it. It is unlikely anyone would know unless it became necessary to use it.
I just hope he's ready to experience the consequences that come with civil disobedience.
What disobedience? The law says he can do it. If the airport says he can’t, and tries to do something about it, then the airport is wrong.
It just frosts me to see just how many folks who consider themselves to be conservatives toe the liberal line about 2nd amendment rights ending at the Airport Loading Zone. There was a time (sure it was 30 something years ago) when it was no big deal to carry a handgun on your person or in your carry-on baggage on an airliner.
The airport seems to believe there is another law that says he can't. I guess if he gets arrested and tried, the judge will have to figure it out.
How do any of us know for sure who they are, what risks they pose and more importantly, have they ALL undergone extensive background checks??? Evidently not as people continue to find illegal aliens employed at airports, by airport subcontractors and other entities involved in running security, food services, cleaning operations, just to mention but a few.
I'm talking about a nutjob who would go into an airport and open fire. (Geez, I figured that would have been apparent, but whatever.)
It is called CONCEALED because you have to keep the gun CONCEALED.
Then what was the point of making a big announcement that he was going to carry a gun to the airport? Just carry it and shut the heck up.
The new law applies to the unsecured area of airports. Anything past the security lines is the “secured area” and is off-limits by federal law, and no one here is arguing that law at all. This hasn’t caused a problem in the 45 or so states that already allow people with permits to carry in the unsecured areas of public airports.
This is what we just did in Georgia. We passed a law explicitly allowing people with permits to carry in some formerly off-limits areas, including the unsecured side of airports. The mayor of Atlanta, who has already lost at least one lawsuit over trying to ban guns in an area where the City is explicitly forbidden from banning guns, decided she didn't like the new law and so was not going to obey it with regards to the Atlanta airport.
I agree that the courts shouldn't be making new law contrary to the legislative process. But when we follow the legislative process, get the law passed that we want, and then a rogue politician states that she is going to ignore that law, it is an appropriate use of the court system to force that politician to obey the law.
The airport cited a law that was explicitly repealed by the new law with regards to people with permits carrying in the unsecured area of airports. They have literally no case whatsoever and will lose the lawsuit quickly.
And the good Representative isn’t getting arrested. After consulting with attorneys, it was decided that the public threat of arrest was sufficient grounds for a lawsuit and so he decided not to carry until the court issues an injunction barring the city from illegally detaining people for lawful acts.
Not in Georgia. We have one permit, called the Georgia Firearms License, and the law makes no distinction between concealed and open carry as long as one has that permit (or any carry permit issued in any state with which we have reciprocity). We do NOT have unlicensed open carry except for your own home or place of business, but if you have the license you may carry openly anywhere you may carry concealed.
Nut jobs don’t keep the sidearm holstered, nor do they care if the law allows them any thing....
I think in your mind we are all just one step away from being a “Nutjob”. Thanks you must be trying to be one of them...maybe?
The law does restrict where in the airport a CCW may be carried. As in my state (MO) all ungated areas are okay for CCW. You cannot go through security with your sidearm, it has to be in checked baggage per federal law.
Ticket counters, luggage carosels, etc are good to go.
God Bless
Agree 100%
What pee's me off are people like the Atlanta mayor and others who try to bypass the legal process either by ignoring laws they don't like or by shopping for a court that will read new meaning into perfectly clear words.
Exactly. I'm in Texas and I have a CHL. I ALWAYS carry a S&W 642 (with Crimson Trace laser sight) in my pocket when I go to pick someone up (unless its a bit cool and I wear a jacket, in which case I wear my .45 IWB). I just can't carry in the secured area. I always presume that others carry as I do. I never had an incident, never got checked, never got wind of an incident with a responsible citizen.
I honestly don't understand why something as simple as a person having the ability to protect themselves and their families has gotten the panties of so many on this thread in a wad.
Oh, and BTW wadded-panty types, prepare for even more later: The Heller decision hinted very strongly that we not only have the right to KEEP arms for self defense, but also to BEAR them (rumor has it that the Constitution prevents the wadded-panty types from legislating against all the rest of us because of their fears). The best hint was that Scalia was taking more about open carry not be subject to very many restrictions, not concealed carry as is the rule here in Texas (which can be highly regulated, so says case law going back about 180 years). So, be prepared for people to be wearing .45s in holsters, just like the cops.
I don't know either. I just think it's stupid this guy made a big announcement that he was going to take a gun to the airport. I guess he just wanted to grab a little attention for himself.
Not once they get where it is they want to shoot, no. Of course they keep it hidden until they get there.
I think in your mind we are all just one step away from being a “Nutjob”.
Please point specifically to what I've said in a post that indicates such a thing. (I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.)
God Bless
You say this after insulting me earlier in your post? Excuse me if I don't believe you are being sincere.
AJC is inaccurate here, omitting the caveat "and a carry permit". The filing notes that only some 300,000 people in GA are affected in this issue; the other several million would remain subject to arrest if caught "carrying without a permit". Only permit holders are permitted explicitly by law to carry loaded & holstered in the airport.
So they want to pack at the airport?
It's not so much that we want to pack at the airport, but pack to and from the airport. Marta, parking garages, etc. are not exactly safe. Carrying in transit is what's usually the more important; carrying at the destination is a consequence of the former, and fumbling with the durn thing to not carry at the destination is significantly more dangerous than just leaving it quietly holstered.
not sure how I feel about that
I don't care how you feel about that. You can't point to anywhere such behavior has been a problem (a key observation in the injunction filing), it's a natural right, and the state legislature just authorized it. People who understand the subject far more than you do have decided it's better to allow such behavior than disallow it.
How do the security people know who is a law-abiding citizen and who is a nutjob
1. They have GA carry permits, which are basically makes the holders card-carrying good guys.
2. Nutjobs can still be detained/arrested/ejected for doing nutty things. We're talking about mere possession while doing normal airport-type activities here, not making political statements.
It is unlikely anyone would know
That "unlikely" is not trivial. Sure, "concealed means concealed", but printing and other indications do happen at times ... and prior to the law in question being enacted, that little faux pas could garner 20 years in prison.
I just hope he's ready to experience the consequences that come with civil disobedience.
He wrote the law allowing such behavior. He was part of the legislature which enacted the law allowing such behavior. It's not civil disobedience to do something which is absolutely, unquestionably legal and reasonable.
The airport seems to believe there is another law that says he can't.
No, they simply don't like the law and are just refusing to obey it. There is not "another law that says he can't". They're making stuff up at this point.
How do any of us know for sure who they are, what risks they pose and more importantly, have they ALL undergone extensive background checks???
It's called a Georgia Firearms License. It identifies the person right down to thumbprint (you can verify that on the spot if it means that much), it may be denied should the issuing judge perceive any risks be posed (and must be renewed every 5 years to re-check them), and is only issued after they have undergone extensive background checks. If you're carrying a handgun anywhere without one, you get arrested.
I'm talking about a nutjob who would go into an airport and open fire.
Well, that's already illegal now, isn't it? And there is absolutely nothing physically stopping someone from doing so, right? It's not like some nutjob is going to think "I want to go into an airport and open fire ... no, wait, I'm not allowed to have a handgun there, so I guess I won't."
what was the point of making a big announcement that he was going to carry a gun to the airport?
Kinda missing the whole story, eh? This guy WROTE the law which explicitly allows GFL holders to carry in the non-secured section of the airport. It says, in no uncertain terms, that airport authorities MUST allow properly permitted people to carry concealed or openly at the airport lobby (so long as they're not causing nutjob-like trouble). Nonetheless, the airport authorities declared they would NOT OBEY THE LAW and declared they would arrest the very person who wrote the very law that said they were not allowed to arrest anyone carrying in the airport lobby. To press THEIR ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR to an actionable point, he announced he would carry as explicitly allowed by law for the very purpose the law was enacted ... and they indeed continued their illegal behavior to an actionable point.
Got it now?
If either group, or the electorate themselves, do not like ... the laws they are free to push for a change.
Used to be you were not allowed to carry at the airport at all. The electorate did not like that law, so they pushed for a change. The change was enacted into new law. The other group did not like that law, so instead of pushing for a change, they just threatened illegal arrest of anyone complying with the law.
If security sees it then you are in violation of the law.
No, the law says you are NOT in violation so long as you have your state-issued GFL carry card.
Absolutely. And I've come to realize that they are only carrying in the open, public areas of the airport. They aren't going through security screening. So, the thing I was concerned about turned out not to be an issue.
Of course it is. I'd have hardly posted what I do out of habit on the internet if it was illegal.
Here is your response-
What constitutes a “nutjob” when referring to Americans that choose to exercise their right to self-defense? A CCW law that may barely be or not be constitutional?
Inferring to “nutjobs” in the same line as CCW “infringees/permittees is the rub. The left does this all the time-just look at the Obama statements; the media harps on us-gosh, even the military frowns on the shooting sports for the most part.
If you felt insulted, sorry. Not intended that way-just disagreeing with a statement; chat /forums leave out the the most important part of language-the non-verbal.
My statement of “God Bless” is sincere, you don’t have to believe it though, your choice.
Once again, May God Richly Bless you and yours!
I never used the term 'nutjob' in reference to law-abiding citizens. Read my first post. I differentiated between the two.
I wonder if a restraining order could include explicit language stating that any officer who arrested someone for violation of the non-law against carrying in the airport would be prosecuted for such action. If handcuff someone and drag them somewhere, I'd be charged with kidnapping. If an officer does likewise in a situation where he knows he has no legal authority to do so, is there any reason he should not be similarly charged?
Officers have wide-reaching immunity when carrying out their duties. Can it extend to cases where they know that they are not? Constitutionally I don't think it can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.