Atlanta Bans Guns in Airport

[Danny]

Mayor Franklin and Hartsfield Manager DeCosta are really making my blood boil. Her illegal laws just burn me up. Guess its time for her to get sued yet once again.



http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/business/stories/2008/06/30/airport_gun_showdown.html

[EJ25RUN]

edit, thanks

i skimmed over it and i know one cant carry a firearm past check point but later in the article it said that you can carry it in some parts as before. What's the change?

[Danny]

fix the link.

it works fine.

[NevrNufTorq]

worked fine for me :2cents:

stuff like this really burns me up, ty for letting me know about it!! :goodjob:

[Danny]

worked fine for me :2cents:

stuff like this really burns me up, ty for letting me know about it!! :goodjob:

It wont stick very long. Tim Bearden might get arrested this morning, if that happens GCO is going to rain hell on Atlanta and GM DeCosta for illegal arrest plus the illegal gun ban. Grab your popcorn! GCO sent out 2 emails last night to its members on this topic, to say the least people are not very happy.

[NevrNufTorq]

It wont stick very long. Tim Bearden might get arrested this morning, if that happens GCO is going to rain hell on Atlanta and GM DeCosta for illegal arrest plus the illegal gun ban. Grab your popcorn! GCO sent out 2 emails last night to its members on this topic, to say the least people are not very happy.
i hope not, tim is a great guy!!! he married one of my best friends sister, great guy and a great dad! he's always with his boys out on the lake i live on. :D :goodjob:

[Danny]

i hope not, tim is a great guy!!! he married one of my best friends sister, great guy and a great dad! he's always with his boys out on the lake i live on. :D :goodjob:


Yea but GCO could get a great plaintiff out of the ordeal. Tim is willing to do it, but im not sure if the Airport would arrest him. Although this DeCosta guy and Franklin are both dumb enough to actually arrest him with our reasonable suspection of crime.

[TIGERJC]

Why does a person need a gun in a airport? I think people should be allowed to carry outside of the airport, but once you go through the airport's doors it should be prohibitied and should still be a federal crime

[BanginJimmy]

Is the airport public property or is it privatly held? I think that this question ends there.

Both sides are stretching the new law and I think we all knew that someone was going to check its boundries sooner rather than later.

[EJ25RUN]

Is the airport public property or is it privatly held? I think that this question ends there.

Both sides are stretching the new law and I think we all knew that someone was going to check its boundries sooner rather than later.

I think it is both private and public. Like it is privately owned but has allot of gov supervision, i'll check for the exact details.

[BanginJimmy]

If the property is privately owned, then those that are going to fight the ban are fighting a losing battle.

On second thought, they may win the battle on this actual law, but they will lose the war when the property owners decide that they dont want guns on their property.

[Danny]

Is the airport public property or is it privatly held? I think that this question ends there.

Both sides are stretching the new law and I think we all knew that someone was going to check its boundries sooner rather than later.


It ends at the fact that preemption is illegal. You would think the Nazi Mayor would remember this, because she just lost a law suit last month for the same reason.

[Sport1.3]

Why does a person need a gun in a airport? I think people should be allowed to carry outside of the airport, but once you go through the airport's doors it should be prohibitied and should still be a federal crime


werd.

[Sport1.3]

So someone get me up to speed here


so you're saying they are trying to get the ability to carry inside an Airport....on the plane and all?

[Danny]

Why does a person need a gun in a airport? I think people should be allowed to carry outside of the airport, but once you go through the airport's doors it should be prohibitied and should still be a federal crime


Dont keep buying into this type of liberal BS. The reason you need a gun in the non-secure area of the airport is because of the same reason you need a gun in every other location of you legal and daily business: self defense. Same reason I carry into a bank, same reason I carry into a million other places that the liberals deem as "safe" and "no need for a gun".

[Danny]

So someone get me up to speed here


so you're saying they are trying to get the ability to carry inside an Airport....on the plane and all?


no man lol. Non secure area only (before security checkpoints). This is legal in a large percentage of states, including GA. And many people do it and do not think twice.

The point of the thread is that the Mayor has yet again made another illegal gun ban, and is going to be sued for it.

[NevrNufTorq]

So someone get me up to speed here


so you're saying they are trying to get the ability to carry inside an Airport....on the plane and all?
read the article please, you're only alowed to carry before the security checkpoints :2cents:

[Sport1.3]

read the article please, you're only alowed to carry before the security checkpoints :2cents:

So you're missing out on carrying from your car to the security check point? These ppl are really splitting hairs here. Paranoia is so rampant amongst gun advocates. As long as they're still relinquished before boarding the aircraft, i dont have a problem with it.

[Danny]

So you're missing out on carrying from your car to the security check point? These ppl are really splitting hairs here. Paranoia is so rampant amongst gun advocates. As long as they're still relinquished before boarding the aircraft, i dont have a problem with it.

There is a difference between paranoia and intelligence. The true gun carrier realizes that crime chooses the time and place in which to victimize, not the other way around. There are plenty of people with your mindset: "nothing will happen to me here, its a safe place". But the person that takes weapons extremely seriously, and every aspect of it realizes this is the furthest thing from the truth.

You think not being able to carry from your car to the airport is not a big deal. Its a huge deal, if you don't believe me go hang around the airport at 3am, its not exactly the type of place you want to have a picnic. This pertains to people conducting business outside the security (ie picking up family). Any intelligent person would know better than to show up to security check line and place their weapon on the xray machine :)

[Danny]

Here is the email i just rec'd a few minutes ago. Looks like both Franklin and DeCosta got dragged into this one. :D Way to go GCO!


(1) GCO Sues Mayor Franklin

More information will follow, but we wanted you to hear it from us first. GCO attorney John "Sledgehammer" Monroe filed a federal lawsuit this morning against Atlanta, Mayor Shirley Franklin, and airport manager Ben Decosta, seeking to enjoin them from arresting people who are obeying state law.

State Rep. Tim Bearden (Dist. 68) is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as Ben DeCosta last night made a specific threat to arrest him today.

The lawsuit is being served on the recalcitrant public officials even while you are reading this Update. More to follow . . .

[SampaGuy]

So you're missing out on carrying from your car to the security check point? These ppl are really splitting hairs here. Paranoia is so rampant amongst gun advocates. As long as they're still relinquished before boarding the aircraft, i dont have a problem with it.


x2

[BanginJimmy]

It ends at the fact that preemption is illegal. You would think the Nazi Mayor would remember this, because she just lost a law suit last month for the same reason.

If the property is owned privately the Mayor has no juristiction in this matter. This means that the law will be struck down, but the ban may not be if the property owner, which I believe DeCosta will act in his name, wants the ban in place.

[Danny]

If the property is owned privately the Mayor has no juristiction in this matter. This means that the law will be struck down, but the ban may not be if the property owner, which I believe DeCosta will act in his name, wants the ban in place.

The Mayor cannot make the law, its illegal. The fact that DeCosta may want the law in place has no weight on the fact that the Mayors law is illegal.

Private or public property is not what is in question here, nor does it effect the lawsuit GCO just made.

[BanginJimmy]

The Mayor cannot make the law, its illegal. The fact that DeCosta may want the law in place has no weight on the fact that the Mayors law is illegal.

Private or public property is not what is in question here, nor does it effect the lawsuit GCO just made.


thats what I said, if its private property then the law is illegal because the Mayor has no juristiction, but the ban is legal. If it is public property then the law and therefore the ban is illegal.

[Danny]

thats what I said, if its private property then the law is illegal because the Mayor has no juristiction, but the ban is legal. If it is public property then the law and therefore the ban is illegal.


Think i see what your saying now. DeCosta could put his "no guns" sign up at the airport. But last time I looked GA Law had little if any mention of the "no guns" signs.

DeCosta saying hartsfield is gun free zone (if priviate property) would be the same as a best buy store claiming gun free. You cant be arrested unless you refuse to leave (becomes similar to criminal trespassing).

Bottom line is the Mayors law is illegal, and DeCosta's claiming a gun free zone would have little to zero legal weight.

[BanginJimmy]

Bottom line is the Mayors law is illegal, and DeCosta's claiming a gun free zone would have little to zero legal weight.

DeCosta's claim does have weight if its pirvate property. The law has no weight no matter who owns the property.

[redrumracer]

If the property is owned privately the Mayor has no juristiction in this matter. This means that the law will be struck down, but the ban may not be if the property owner, which I believe DeCosta will act in his name, wants the ban in place.
the city of Atlanta is the owner of the airport
just go right here http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KATL and scroll down and it list who owns the airport

[FlipKing]

I has the right to bear arms where ever the hell I please. Airport, bank, White House depending on who wins the election :ninja:

[BanginJimmy]

the city of Atlanta is the owner of the airport
just go right here http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KATL and scroll down and it list who owns the airport

In that case then the law will be struck down and the ban will be illegal unless the actual law if amended.

[K24cb7coupe]

few things, the airport and its property are owned by the city of atlanta and the federal goverment.

you can carry a weapon in the terminal but can take it past the passenger check point

if you take a firearm on a flight it has to be in a checked bag, you can not carry it on a plane even if its not loaded. and it can not be in a check bag loaded. its not even suppost to have rounds in the clip and it has to be in a locked container and has to be declared at the time of check in or it will be removed from you bag when it gets to TSA.

i work for delta and see people guns get taken out of the bags all the time bc they are loaded or they dont declared them at the time of check in.

[.blank cd]

Why does a person need a gun in a airport? I think people should be allowed to carry outside of the airport, but once you go through the airport's doors it should be prohibitied and should still be a federal crimex3
I mean seriously. just like people NEED to carry in a restaurant, or a bar. Give me a break. Have you been in the airport recently? If you go in there and dont see an armed officer, you probably still have your eyes closed. This whole "gun laws" movement is for the people that have to carry cause they're too scared to deal w/ confrontations w/o resorting to armed negotiations. so friggin stupid IMO

[turbosx©]

no, stupid is not wanting the upper hand if need be in a given situation.

and people can't carry in bars.(legally anyway)

on a side note: as for the airport officers just because they're there doesn't mean they'll be of any help.

[B18CDELSLO]

x3
This whole "gun laws" movement is for the people that have to carry cause they're too scared to deal w/ confrontations w/o resorting to armed negotiations. so friggin stupid IMO

Im not gonna speak for everyone but you are right that some people are like that, i work in a job with alot of confrontations and i often run into people that ive had to deal with at work that try to walk up on me in public! Ive had numerous death threats, guns pulled, and shot at me, so i myself am ALWAYS armed:goodjob: However there are the people that run around carrying bcuz they puss or they think it look cool:screwy:

[green91]

no, stupid is not wanting the upper hand if need be in a given situation.

and people can't carry in bars.(legally anyway)



If you've got a concealed carry permit and are not drinking, you actually can carry in a bar now thanks to new law.

[BanginJimmy]

x3
I mean seriously. just like people NEED to carry in a restaurant, or a bar. Give me a break. Have you been in the airport recently? If you go in there and dont see an armed officer, you probably still have your eyes closed. This whole "gun laws" movement is for the people that have to carry cause they're too scared to deal w/ confrontations w/o resorting to armed negotiations. so friggin stupid IMO


I seem to remember a couple months back that someone walked into a McD's with a gun and started shooting. Would ahve been nice if someone in there was armed wouldnt it?

If someone comes up to me in a threatening manner then they deserve to get shot. It has nothing to do with being scared or being a puss, its simple common sense. I dont know you, I dont know what you are capable of doing, so I should be prepared to defend myself in any situation.

[turbosx©]

If you've got a concealed carry permit and are not drinking, you actually can carry in a bar now thanks to new law.


not a bar in the since of typical bar, like more than 50% profit from liqour.

[stephen]

it kinda sucks that our culture relies on guns so heavily. don't get me wrong, i carry 80% of the time, but it's just kinda scary when you think about what type of people are licensed to carry. the airport deal kinda has me on the fence...i fly A LOT, and would hate to maybe have a petty dispute with some trigger happy fool in the baggage claim area...because one of us confused our bags or something. honestly, if i were in a bad situation at some place as big and CROWDED as the airport, i probably wouldn't want to fire a weapon ANYWAY (regardless if it's for defensive purposes). i'd probably do my best to haul A$$ and get out, and pray for the best. if i were in a situation like that somewhere far less secure/crowded, i'd go ahead and shoot if i had to. like i said though, i'm all for being able to carry and all...i'm really just not down with carrying at the airport....that just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[turbosx©]

but thats your personal opinion but you would want that option if you wanted right?

[tony]

it kinda sucks that our culture relies on guns so heavily. don't get me wrong, i carry 80% of the time, but it's just kinda scary when you think about what type of people are licensed to carry. the airport deal kinda has me on the fence...i fly A LOT, and would hate to maybe have a petty dispute with some trigger happy fool in the baggage claim area...because one of us confused our bags or something. honestly, if i were in a bad situation at some place as big and CROWDED as the airport, i probably wouldn't want to fire a weapon ANYWAY (regardless if it's for defensive purposes). i'd probably do my best to haul A$$ and get out, and pray for the best. if i were in a situation like that somewhere far less secure/crowded, i'd go ahead and shoot if i had to. like i said though, i'm all for being able to carry and all...i'm really just not down with carrying at the airport....that just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Exactly what I said, I don't know of too many situations that have popped off in Airports within the U.S that requires a citizen to carry a hand gun. I'm totally against carrying a handgun into the airport, and I do think it would be better to compromise on this one then risk losing the rights that have already been established.

[MistaCee]

it kinda sucks that our culture relies on guns so heavily. don't get me wrong, i carry 80% of the time, but it's just kinda scary when you think about what type of people are licensed to carry. the airport deal kinda has me on the fence...i fly A LOT, and would hate to maybe have a petty dispute with some trigger happy fool in the baggage claim area...because one of us confused our bags or something. honestly, if i were in a bad situation at some place as big and CROWDED as the airport, i probably wouldn't want to fire a weapon ANYWAY (regardless if it's for defensive purposes). i'd probably do my best to haul A$$ and get out, and pray for the best. if i were in a situation like that somewhere far less secure/crowded, i'd go ahead and shoot if i had to. like i said though, i'm all for being able to carry and all...i'm really just not down with carrying at the airport....that just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Reps for a level headed post.

Most of these guys carrying guns carry it with a hope in having just even the smallest slightest reason to use it. I agree with the law but when it comes to the airport it should be banned past the doors. I also don't agree with having guns in bars with alcohol present.

Bar= People+ Alcohol= Anger/less awareness+ gun = gun fights.

[n00bsrus]

i think everyone needs a gun when they go to the atlanta airport. that place is dangeroussssssssssssssssssss

[turbosx©]

so everyone who is opposed to guns in airports is ok with depending on someone else to protect you?

[stephen]

so everyone who is opposed to guns in airports is ok with depending on someone else to protect you?

basically...yes. somtimes, that's your best option. think about it...who do you rely on protecting you on the actual plane? air marshalls right? i know it's 2 different type of places, but think about WHY air marshalls are the only ones who can carry on a plane. i'd much rather have them letting of rounds at 30 thousand feet than myself anyday...and i'm sure other passengers would appreciate it too! the same goes for me in the airport. i'm not going to play rambo in a crowded airport because of some maniac...especially when there's almost 1 of every type of security official every 5ft (ATF, FBI, CITY POLICE, DEA, etc. etc.). i'd rather let them be the cowboys in that situation.

[turbosx©]

the airplane one I understand completely.as for the airport terminal I see your point but at the time If someone goes maniac im not gonna stick around to get shot at by the cops or the maniac.Im not gonna try to play hero, I think we agree there but if the maniac crosses my path and targets me and/or people I care for I want to be able to fight back. Now this is a big what if but thats how I look at it.I hope the only time I use the gun is trainning or the range. :yes: but thats just me.