Atlanta Sued for Barring Guns in Airport!

[KG4JYD]

The nation's busiest airport dueled with gun rights advocates Tuesday over whether a new Georgia state law allows visitors to carry firearms at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

City officials in charge of the airport declared it a "gun-free zone" when a law allowing people to carry guns on public transit and other places took effect Tuesday. Gun rights supporters, including a state legislator who helped pass the law, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the designation.

"My message is simple: Leave your firearms at home," airport general manager Ben DeCosta told reporters at a news conference.


Atlanta officials said anyone carrying a gun at the airport could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.


The new state law allows people with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns into restaurants, state parks and on public transportation.


John Monroe, an attorney for the gun rights backers who filed the lawsuit, argued the Atlanta airport qualifies as public transportation. There are also restaurants in the terminal, which Monroe said should be accessible to gun-toting visitors under the new law.


The gun group argues that weapons should be allowed in the terminal up to the point where passengers pass through security to board their flights. The parking lot is off limits under the state law, but it allows travelers to carry a gun on MARTA trains and buses, which run directly to the airport.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRBGpYXCqND81Gr2Q0EhViM9UftQD91L6KCO0

[K2WH]

This does not belong in the political junkie section. What is it with some of you so stuck in this section, you dont' realize you are posting things here that don't belong here.

K2WH

[KG4JYD]

This does not belong in the political junkie section. What is it with some of you so stuck in this section, you dont' realize you are posting things here that don't belong here.Sarcasm, right? :confused:

[KG4JYD]

No one wants to discuss this?

[KD6NIG]

Be interesting to see what happens. The Supreme Court case, like I said before, was just a beginning. The legal challenges will take years to hash out, and I have a feeling this freedom isn't going to be as free as people think.

However, it will be interesting to see what happens with this. California has had "Gun and Drug Free" zones around schools for years, where if you are caught with either you get an enhanced fine or sentence.

In the end I don't really see a lot coming out of this but more requirements and fees to be able to exercise a right deemed in the Constitution. Being that this is an Airport, and under the guise of "National Security" it could very well be that this one will stand. Lord knows that plenty of other rights are violated to get on an airplane nowadays anyway.

[n2ize]

All kidding aside, isn't it a little crazy to have people walking around the airport with concealed weapons, especially at a time when we are searching people and are paranoid about terrorists ?

[KG4JYD]

"Gun and Drug Free" zones around schools for years, And those are unconstitutional as well.

[K7JEM]

And those are unconstitutional as well.

Why would those be unconstitutional? What would make you say that? Don't you think they've been tested in the courts? They are what defines "constitutional" not you, or some other whack job.

Joe

[n2ize]

And those are unconstitutional as well.

The idea of "drug free" school zones is a reassurance to parents that supposedly drug dealers are not selling potentially dangerous drugs to young children. Thanks to the failed policy of drug prohibition, drug gangsters have found that their is a lucraitve market in selling drugs to minors and getting minors to work as dealers.

Want really drug free school zones. End drug prohibition. Take the high profit out of illegal drug sales. Sell the drugs in drug stores and require strict proof of age in order to buy them just as is now done for booze.

[KC4RAN]

Yes, we need gun free zones around schools... because we all know that no one carries a gun to school and either takes hostages, or randomly walks around killing people, or any of another hundred reasons that a law-abiding person might have need to defend themselves or their family with their own weapon.

We should rely on the police to protect us, since they're doing such a bang-up job so far, pardon the pun.

And look at how well those drug-free zones are working at keeping drugs off the campuses of schools.

/rolleyes

[KC4RAN]

Want really drug free school zones. End drug prohibition. Take the high profit out of illegal drug sales. Sell the drugs in drug stores and require strict proof of age in order to buy them just as is now done for booze.

You support this, yet you resist allowing law-abiding people to carry their own weapon in their own car while picking up their kids at school.

What sense does that make? Shouldn't your philosophical position either support both or oppose both?

[K1VSK]

This issue is devoid of any common sense, as are many of the gun lobby arguments. Anybody dumb enough to take a gun into an airport deserves to be prosecuted, if only for their stupidity (among other reasons).

[W3MIV]

This issue is devoid of any common sense, as are many of the gun lobby arguments. Anybody dumb enough to take a gun into an airport deserves to be prosecuted, if only for their stupidity (among other reasons).

Another knee jerking for Sarah Brady, I presume. You've lost. Get over it.

[K1VSK]

Another knee jerking for Sarah Brady, I presume. You've lost. Get over it.

A futile attempt at making a substantive or thoughful response.

I didn't lose anything but society as a whole may have taken a minor, albeit temporary step backward.

[W3MIV]

This issue is devoid of any common sense, as are many of the gun lobby arguments. Anybody dumb enough to take a gun into an airport deserves to be prosecuted, if only for their stupidity (among other reasons).

A futile attempt at making a substantive or thoughful response.

I didn't lose anything but society as a whole may have taken a minor, albeit temporary step backward.


Let's examine your initial post and measure it for substance and thoughtfulness. It would seem to fail on both counts. Your assertion that the issue is wanting for common sense is incomplete; pray explain for us how the issue is "devoid" of common sense. Please put it in the context of your qualifying jibe about "many other gun lobby arguments."

In point of fact, all of the violations of common sense have been on the gun control side of the debates. The very idea that criminals will obey weapons laws is such a violation of common sense that one needs carry the conversation no further. The assertion that there is value in disarming innocent and law-abiding citizens in the face of a police and justice system that have shown themselves feckless in the face of criminality is another incredible violation of common sense. All that the "gun lobby" has ever asserted is the right of self-protection that stands in substitution for the failures of government at any level to assure that protection. You may recall that the SCOTUS held that police departments do not have an obligation to protect individual citizens. That being the case, these citizens willingly step forward to manage for themselves.

Therefore, it is quite clear on which side of the issue futility stands. Ask not for whom that bell tolls, it tolls for your stand against the full civil liberties granted by the Bill of Rights. The step taken was anything but minor, as will be seen over the next several months, and, as with every other significant advance of personal, individual rights, the step will prove to be a major stride forward in the continuing struggle to preserve the most fundamental of our rights.

[KG4JYD]

isn't it a little crazy to have people walking around the airport with concealed weapons, especially at a time when we are searching people and are paranoid about terrorists ?No, because prohibiting guns in a specific place will not stop terrorists from bringing the guns into that place. And the fact that there might be other people who are armed might actually be a deterrent.

[K1VSK]

Let's examine your initial post and measure it for substance and thoughtfulness. .

I'm afraid I cannot be more clear is describing anyone carrying a gun into an airport as stupid or, at a minimum, devoid of common sense. If you fail to understand that, I can give you an explanation but fear it too is futile as apparently you either can't or refuse to understand and therefore isn't worth the effort trying.
Good luck with your delusion.