Lawsuit Filed To Carry Weapons In Atlanta Airport

ATLANTA — 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.

Rep. Tim Bearden, a Republican from Villa Rica and a former police officer, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Bearden sponsored the state law.

He had told a newspaper he would carry a concealed weapon to the airport Tuesday when he picked up his family. But he told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday morning, "There will be no reason for any confrontation at the airport."

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.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said citizens can't bring guns into the terminal and argued that airports remain attractive targets for terrorism.

Allowing citizens to carry firearms "would create an environment that would endanger millions of people," she said.

Franklin said she will lobby Congress to withhold federal funds from facilities that allow firearms on their premises.

Comments

[ResistanceisFutile]

Justice Thomas agrees, all Americans have the right to own and carry guns.

Right on Tommy Smith.

Let's permit gun carry in all halls of justice, all governmental buildings and places of business.

We just might get real justice, good legislation and civil discord.

Lock and Load!

[djkrlsn]

I hear the Borg is looking for ResistanceisFutile

[westreal]

I think the law should pass. We need to try different things to see what has a positive affect on crime. If people think you're packing they won't think about robbing you and terrorists definitely won't be visiting Hartsfield-Jackson airport anytime soon.

I like the idea. Let's see what happens.

[popworld7]

I don't know about you but I feel so much safer knowing people are wearing concealed weapons into an airport. Next, they will allow concealed bombs in them as well. It's just for personal protection. Didn't you know?

This country is insane.

[zbig]

So you can't bring a nailcutter but you can bring a magnum? What's to stop a terrorist from basically grabbing a gun from some gun-lover-idiot (redundant I know) and start shooting at everyone?

[muffinman2]

"What's to stop a terrorist from basically grabbing a gun from some gun-lover-idiot (redundant I know) and start shooting at everyone?"

Gee I don't know. Maybe the gun-lover idiot blowing the terrorist's head off?

Who's an idiot?

[Tator]

One very simple FACT you moonbats have yet to explain away. Out here in the country everyone has guns and everyone carries them in their cars yet we have the lowest gun crime per capita of any group or area that has the strict gun control. It is not be "more guns=more gun crimes" since the DoJ data clearly shows the opposite..­........pl­ease explain.

Waiting...­..........

[BlueStateMan]

Show me YOURS first....

EMPIRICAL evidence..­.

No links to wingnut OPINION sites...

NO conjecture­....

NO talking points....

FACTS...

EVIDENCE.

I'll wait.

[Tator]

Poor ole moonbats. Knowing you so well, I set you up.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm

The data clearly shows rural folks have a gun related homicide rate much lower than gun controlled cities.
Gun homicide Large city 59.3% Small city 19.8% Suburban 10.6% Rural 10.4%

So read it and drop your ignorant heads in shame the data clearly shows the more you get into the country where we have far more guns than you gun controlled city folk the gun homicide rate drops to the lowest, just as I said it the original post to smoke out the dunderheads who cling to the false premise "more guns=more gun crime". now I wonder if the moonbats will make the connection­... between why we also have the lowest crime rates compared to the cities....­..hold you breath....­..it is because we have those guns we have so little crime.

Next......­.

[CheneysACoward]

Maybe reading should be required before you get your guns,,,The DOJ report does NOT report crime rate as you have stated or twisted. Crime rate is reported per capita NOT per capita/with guns vs with out guns. And "everyone"? If your "out here in the country" is so safe why do you need so many guns? Fraid of us City Folk?

[Tator]

Might want to check the link moonbat...­...there is a category under "Weapons" called "Gun Crime"....­...Maybe reading should be required before you put your foot in your mouth HAHAHAHAHAHAH

[wolfgangmo]

Tatorhead,

I agree with BlueStateGuy and the sound of crickets would seem to indicate that you can't find any FACTS, but here is one for you based on empirical evidence and a basic understanding of math and statistics.

I have noticed a tendancy among the "non-Moonbat" among the population to skew stats by ignoring a key factor or adding an element that has nothing to do with the argument.

One example is when fox news compared the number of deaths in Iraq [early in the occupation] to the number of deaths in California. They said that the size of California and Iraq were almost the same. This gave them a comparison of 1.7 deaths per day in Iraq and 6.6 deaths per day in California of American citizens. To their way of doing the "new non-moonbat math" this made sense.

Can you tell me why it is complete cow poop, Tator? I'll give you a hint? The number of deaths is a peer capita measurement and NOT a per acre measurement. If you can figure this one out then maybe you can figure out why you question is based on "new non-moonbat math" BS as well.

Good luck.

PS - if you get a calculator you won't have to take your shoes off to do bit o' cipherin'.

[JustADumbFireman]

Bravo, Wolferl!

[richardgordon]

"This gave them a comparison of 1.7 deaths per day in Iraq and 6.6 deaths per day in California of American citizens."

If this statistic is anywhere near true, it proves that America is one hell of a dangerous place to live in. And the only difference between America and any other civilized part of the world is the availability of guns.

This gun policy is insane. It gives everybody the right to carry these things in plain view. How many times have you heard in the news when some "law abiding citizen" suddenly flipped his lid and started massacring people. Or the family man who suddenly loses it and shoots his entire family.

If I were an American I would be furious. Why should the rights of the gun nuts prevail over the rest of society? Gun violence is a nightmare in America. When is America going to wake up and do something about this? This is a classic example of an apathetic public allowing a small minority to get the upper hand. Why aren't all you anti-gun people stepping up to the plate and fighting this insanity?

The NRA has got America by the short and curlys. Its only because they are more politically astute and active that the their point of view prevails. Its not guns that are the problem in America its apathy that is the problem. If you want things to change you have to fight for your rights.

[muffinman2]

Uh, here are some FACTS. This is the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Click on US Crime. Enjoy.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Is that empirical enough for you?

Crime in the U.S. ( PER 100,000 INHABITANTS) rose 313% from 1960-2006. That's what forty years of gun control has done to reduce crime in this country.

Now, I don't know how guns in airports would work out here in the U.S., but when was the last time you heard of an Israeli airliner being hijacked?

[AdLib]

That's it for me, another day another major issue resolved. All in a day's work for Adlib Guy.

G'night all!

[peacekitten]

g'nite. sleep tight.

tomorrow night, we'll hammer out a peace treaty for all of the middle east.

but then what will we do for the rest of the week?

[AdLib]

Totally OT but just saw poll numbers on DailyKos (Alaska is a 4 point race! What does that tell you?):

"FLORIDA

PPP (PDF). 6/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.6% (3/15-16 results)

McCaln (R) 44 (50)
0bama (D) 46 (39)

Rasmussen. 6/26. Likely voters. MoE 4% (6/18 results)

McCaln (R) 48 (47)
0bama (D) 41 (39)

The Pollster.com composite is tight: McCaln 45.3, 0bama 43.5."

[peacekitten]

that is truly sad that mickeynuts is even close enough to be a concern for obama.

next thing you know, the n.r.a. fanatics will want to be packing at the polls, too.

where's judge roy bean when you need him?

[django707]

I want everybody in the south armed, damn it! Give 'em all the guns they want!

And while they're at it, I hope they put those guns to good use and successfully secede from the union this time. And I promise to be a traitor to my country and do everything in my power to help you secede.

Then you can make your own fundamentalist theocracy and have all the wars you want with the other fundamentalist theocracies. Won't that be nice?

But please just promise to stay out of the northern states and the west coast.

Get it right this time!

[Deaninphilly]

As I recall if history serves me correct, it was the north who forcibly integrated the southern states back into the union. Please do know your history before speaking like a jack a $ $.

[Kalima]

Well still no success with the twirly thing, so I wish you all a very good night, Gute Nacht
and Oyasumi nasai. Have to do a bit of getting ready for my video call with my father.
At 85 he has better eyes than I do. Take care, have a good day and maybe see you
later. Auf Wiedersehen.

[Nochnoi]

Faire thee well.... see you later.....­..... : )

[AdLib]

Good afternoon to you, Kalima!

[DMSmith]

I have a suspicion that this ruling will be its own undoing. We will end up with so many crazed ideas as to what will/should be allowed, and so many will try so much madness that we will be driven - by necessity - to reverse our direction and reign in the use and rights of guns.

This is a prime example, and it's off and running!!!

[1differentdrummer]

Rein in the use of guns? Guns have one purpose, to kill. I own guns, have for many years, and have shot competitively on military teams so I know how to use them safely. My issue is some 2nd Amendment stalwart without that background but just enough schooling to get a carry permit hauls out his piece and starts firing at some malefactor. Where do the bullets go? You don't know? Neither does the one firing because bullets go through, miss and bounce around or wind up in your car, a kid on a bike, you or your grandmother. The same is true with someone who has shot for years. I wouldn't shop, eat or live on a pistol range just as I don't want the mall or airport turned into a shooting range.

[wolfgangmo]

Rule number one - don't pull the trigger unless you KNOW where that bullet is going. As a former officer I worked with many of the testosterone deficient types like the idiot who hopes to get arrested at the Atlanta airport in order to try this case in court.

Guns at an airport or anywhere public is a bad idea. For home defense OK, but get a shotgun. They work better, require less aiming, go short distances if you miss [thus you don't kill the kid down the block] and the sound of a shotgun cocking is enough to make most burglars have a "condition brown."

This is a stupid idea and I am glad it is not happening here.

[WeekendWarrior]

I thought the same thing. Does the ruling mean that the gun nuts have the reight to carry a gun on the plane or is there an exception in the 2nd ammendment?

[StinkyPete]

One problem - over the past several decades nearly 40 states have enacted very liberal concealed carry laws. It seems to work very well. This also will be factored in any review.
We have to accept the results of these experiments and extend them to this case. I see no reason not to allow concealed carry here. On the basis of what actually has happened - what argument can one present to prohibit licensed carry? All I see from the critics is just the usual fears not based on reality but rather fantasy.

[Chillinout]

Well, people it has been a great, lively at times, debate. See? Reasonable people can have reasonable debates. But I need to get some sleep. So I will see ya' all later. :-)

And to AdLib, I wish it WAS up to you and I to solve this. Even though we disagree somewhat, I know we would be able to easily come to a compromise that would satisfy both parties.

[Nochnoi]

Oh thanks....­. just leave me out of it....

[AdLib]

Agreed. Then tomorrow night we could finally resolve this Middle East conflict thing.

G'night!

[peacekitten]

hey guys, ahem......­....

[GrouchoMarxist]

Heh...this is actually great. Even Scalia in his half-assed decision in the DC ban case wasn't wingnutty enough to suggest that all gun laws are unconstitutional. The lunatics bringing this suit are going to do nothing more than provoke a public backlash. No one in their right minds wants people packing heat in airports. It's nice of them to expose themselves in public...s­o to speak.

[AdLib]

So is it a Gunfight at the OK Corral between the Homeland Security Right Wingers and the Guns at the Airport Right Wingers? I want front row seats!

[MichiganJFrog]

Behind bullet proof glass.

[GrouchoMarxist]

That's more or less what it will come down to, would be my guess.

[Nochnoi]

Are you sure..... Personally­.... I will be behind the bar..... let me know when they are done and I will serve up drinks for anyone left standing..­....

[Nochnoi]

Oh.... thankfully­..... more voices of reason....­....

[GrouchoMarxist]

Thankee :)

[curocat]

Yeah, next they'll want to carry guns on the airplane..­. wonder what Scalia will say to that????.. "To bear" acording to Webster; to carry or transport.­..

[SgtLucifer]

Guns at the airport...­? Yes, yes!!! Anything to keep the line moving.

[Egalitare]

"Excuse me, but do you have any 9mm ammo you can spare? I just emptied my clip on some jerk who told me my flight was oversold. The next agent was surprisingly helpful in finding me a seat...."

[thepeoplechoose]

The 2nd amendment says we can have guns. That isn't part of the argument. Nor has it been for as long as I can remember.

Regulating them so we know who has them, how many and what types is where the dialog breaks down. Our society allows all manner of things in a regulated way because it has been demonstrated that we, as a society, need to keep track of any number of things. Guns are logically one of those things. Unregulated possession and use isn't logical. It probably won't stop criminal types from obtaining them but laws are broken every day and that won't change. We, as a society, have identified a need to license vehicles and vehicle operators. There are sound reasons for having done so. Those same logical and prudent reasons apply to guns. This seems common sense to me.

[BlueStateMan]

The 2nd Amendment.­....

"A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.­"

Emphasis mine.

[Chillinout]

That little comma there after State is where the debate and uncertainty comes in. Does that mean and? Are there two separate rights there? The right to a militia and the right for the individual?

Btw

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. " - Thomas Jefferson

This would indicate that for Jefferson, at least, the 2nd amendment was for individuals.

[brainuser]

Did any linguists or English professors testify at the trial-court level? Sometimes it seems we know more about Shakespeare's English than about the Constitution.

[StinkyPete]

They submitted a brief

http://tinyurl.com/64mjlw

I skim read it a while ago - If I recall correctly, they concluded that the 2nd amendment meant little more than that soldiers have the right to be armed before being sent into battle.

[AdLib]

Peacekitten - In response to your post below:

Jesus would probably go for a Peacekeeper MX missile.

You raise a great point, the hypocrisy_of the conservati­ve_religio­us_anti-ab­ortion, pro-death_penalty, gun_owners (the "bitter" ones of course).

They are screaming_­hypocrites­, calling themselves Christian and followers of the Bible (anyone remember that rap about "Thou shat not_kill"?) yet supporting the killing_of people who have committed the_sin and crime of killing_while doing a triple backflip to call themselves pro-life and extolling the importance of even a cluster of cells to live while doing a triple lutz and a Hamil Camel to support the broad and unlimited ownership of any and all guns without restriction so they can_shoot and_kill anyone breaking into their house.

It's a living parody of humanity.

[Chillinout]

And that is why I am not a religious person. I asked my little brother, (the only religious right person I know), how he could square up his religious beliefs with his support for the Iraq War and the death penalty. That was six months ago and he hasn't emailed me back since.

[AdLib]

From my POV, your position on this issue is unassailable. You are a responsible gun owner, you recognize and respect the intent of the 2nd Amendment and sensible regulations that don't infringe on the true intent of it and you are not hypocritical or extremist.

If it was up to us, we'd have this thing worked out by Friday.

[BlueStateMan]

I remember an Oxford Debate in the 80's where the subject was, "Are Nuclear Weapons Morally Defensible?"

On the "no" side was an Oxford debating team student...­.

On the "yes" side was Jerry Falwell (with Cal Thomas sitting by his side).

Falwell was ripped to smithereens.

I wish I could find a link to that broadcast.

[wolfgangmo]

I find the sound of crickets to be very peaceful, don't you?

[peacekitten]

(part 2 of 2)

i don't know if you were ever familiar with a bullet that was manufactured a few years ago called a black talon. basically, the nose of the bullet opened out upon contact with the target into a razor sharp pattern of daisy petals, that pulverized every vital organ around it. even wounds in otherwise repairable places became either crippling or fatal because of it. some police departments were even outfitting their officers with that horrible thing.

it was finally banned when the american medical association put enormous amounts of pressure on the gun lobby. they were tired of their emergency room surgeons getting cut to ribbons when they were trying to save a life because they had no idea what kind of bullet had caused the wound. what kind of a sick mind would even produce such a hideous thing to start with? it certainly wouldn't have even been useful for hunting. it was just another sick way to injure and kill another living thing that those "good christians" wanted....­...

oh well. i'm sure whatever big guy lives in the sky has a lightening bolt with my name on it for being so disrespectful of his "christian­s." f&^k 'em.

[AdLib]

I am familiar with the Black Talons. The invention of sick minds protected and promoted by more sick minds for far too long.

Like any other industry, an industry about creating weapons intended to kill other people must keep "innovating" and giving their customer base new and exciting models and capabilities to inspire greater sales.

It is a death industry just as the military weapons industry is (not to say all individual gun and rifle manufacturers are violence mongers, I concede that hunting game is a popular activity not necessarily related to killing people...u­nless you're Dlck_Cheney).

Without validating the necessity to kill other people (even through self-protection), they'd be out of business.

[AdLib]

I am familiar with the Black Talons. The invention of sick minds protected and promoted by more sick minds for far too long.

Like any other industry, an industry about creating_weapons intended to kill_other people must keep "innovating" and giving their customer base new and exciting models and capabilities to inspire greater sales.

It is a death_industry just as the military weapons industry is (not to say all individual gun and rifle manufacturers are violence mongers, I concede that hunting game is a popular activity not necessarily related to_killing people...u­nless you're Dlck_Cheney).

Without validating the necessity to_kill other people (even through self-protection), they'd be out of business.

[StinkyPete]

What you are referring to is a standard type of projectile mandated for hunting and almost universally used for self-defense by individuals and LE. What disturbs you is the black coating and scary name. Congratulations, the very same has been marketed with a different name (fail-safe) and without the coating.

[peacekitten]

(part 1 of 2)

love the peacekeeper missile. much easier to carry than the cross, i guess. and all the better for smiting, and that sort of thing.....­...

it never ceases to amaze me that so many of these people don't see the dichotomy of what they claim are their belief systems. they support the "right to life" until you have the nerve to be born. the fact that the MOTHER containing those cells may have a different opinion as to what she wants to happen to her own body doesn't matter to them.

i have never understood why it is that the rabid gun owners get so defensive if they don't have something to hide. would that same person even think of using a kitchen appliance without reading the directions? it's a safe bet the number of people killed by toasters is far lower than those killed by guns.

[AdLib]

There does seem to be a primal thing between gun extremists and guns, a sexually-obvious thing. I don't mean that in literal terms but in the symbolism of their insecurity over the instrument of their "power" being threatened.

That seems to explain the emotional and knee-jerk objections to any control over their "instrument", their absolutism and irrational extremism.

I always say, you can't reason someone out of a position they arrived at without using reason. Pandering to the NRA will never change this small-minded mentality, we need Dems to stand on principle and reason even if the unreasonable have a strong lobby.