Atlanta showdown: Should concealed carry be extended to airport terminals?
posted at 7:59 pm on July 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Ironically, the impetus for this is an extension of the Georgia concealed carry law to allow weapons in parks and on public transportation. The dispute is over whether that extension now includes airport terminals — just the terminals, not the area past the metal detectors — or whether those are off-limits as “public gatherings” within the meaning of Section 4 of the new bill. My hunch is to say, what’s the big deal with restricting them there? How likely is it that a terrorist’s going to waste a small-arms attack on a heavily guarded area like an airport instead of a city plaza or a shopping mall parking lot?
But terrorists don’t always behave the way we expect them to, do they?
Coming soon to a post-Heller Supreme Court near you:
“This is a matter of national significance,” Mayor Shirley Franklin told reporters at a news conference. Permitting guns inside an airport, even weapons carried by permit holders, would create an unsafe environment that “would endanger millions of people,” the mayor said.
Franklin vowed Tuesday to lobby Congress and federal officials to mandate that any public facility receiving federal money be declared a “gun-free zone.” That would affect airports nationwide…
Gun advocates say the new law means people with the proper permits could carry concealed weapons in the non-secure areas in front of the security gates. Federal law prohibits guns beyond the security gates, and both sides agree that guns should be banned there…
Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta said the city’s legal team has studied the new law and determined the airport still falls under a “public gathering” exception in the Georgia Code.
Remember, Scalia went out of his way in the Heller opinion to say that the decision did nothing to cast doubt on “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” Exit question: Is an airport terminal a “sensitive place”?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Yes. Having been there, Yes!
old trooper on July 1, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Can we presume that LAX bans weapons?
darkpixel on July 1, 2008 at 8:05 PM
What is to stop anyone from bringing a gun into those areas now? Absolutely nothing… that’s what. Oh, you think the terrorist wouldn’t bring a gun into the airport because it’s against the law? Well you are a pie in the sky liberal if you think that.
The LAWS in the airport are only respected by the law abiding. Allowing the law abiding to carry guns into the airport would be a boon to security not a threat to security.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Of course you should be able to carry there. What is the problem? As long as no one is arguing you should be able to carry past the metal detectors, I see nothing wrong with it. If someone tries something stupid, there will be others there to handle the situation.
muyoso on July 1, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Let’s not forget the El Al shooting at LAX in July 2002 (?). Close enough after the atrocities of 9/11/01 for the authorities to claim that a Muslim shooting up the ticketing counter (outside the metal detectors) at a major airport was not a terrorist act. After all a Muslim shooting up passengers and employees of the airline of a Jewish state at a major American airport couldn’t possibly be terrorism!
My point is this, Mayor Franklin continues her role as partisan hack with these statements. Guns are already running around Hartsfield Airport’s public area whether or not Mayor moron wants to admit it or not. This is either nothing more than a political stunt in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling or the moonbats truly attempting to divide and conquer now that their hopes of outright editing of the Bill of Rights was shut down by a single vote.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Yup ! ! folks with permits aren’t the problem.
Texyank on July 1, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Does anyone remember the collage about a year ago, where a nutball student came in a slaughtered more than twenty people in a GUN-FREE-ZONE? A gun free zone is just a ideal place for mentally unstable people to get maximum effect when they decide to engage in one of these slaughters. Guns in the hands of the public save lives in these situations, that’s a fact.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 8:14 PM
In VA a fellow with a concealed carry permit may carry into the airport short of the metal detectors.
I have yet to hear of any crazed CCHers going crazy in the airport.
Now Dem Congressmen, on the other hand….
JohnTant on July 1, 2008 at 8:15 PM
ATL/Hartsfield is a shiiithole. This is one place where I’d feel a lot more comfortable having Mr. 38 along for the trip. I don’t know who’d use this other than people picking up friends or people who work at the airport in front of the detectors, but I’m all for it.
malan89 on July 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Never mind…I was wrong. Must have passed relatively recently, or my recollection was off….
In VA you can’t carry directly into the terminal.
Ummm….
NEVER MIND.
Erp.
JohnTant on July 1, 2008 at 8:17 PM
In Texas, a CHL holder can carry in the non-secure areas of an airport. We don’t have a problem.
DAT60A3 on July 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I’ve always liked that airport. I go to ATL once or twice a year for tradeshows. Easy access to Marta to get me downtown and seems to flow nice. I’ve been to worse airports than ATL, that’s for sure.
lorien1973 on July 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM
You all need to understand that this is Shirley franklin, Ben DeCosta, and the CEO of the transit agency in Atlanta acting like children. They didn’t want this law passed and it did anyway, now they are throwing a tantrum.
Shirley Franklin recently lost in court over her ban on firearms in city parks due to Georgia’s preemption law. ONLY the legislature in Georgia can regulate where firearms are carried, but she is insisting that the Atlanta city government can and will continue to make whatever rules she wants.
She and Ben DeCosta were served with federal lawsuits at their own press conference. DeCosta accepted his, Franklin turned her back and walked away in a huff.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15566
quax1 on July 1, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Another thought. You can ship a handgun, shotgun, or rifle as checked luggage. If you can’t bring it inside the airport to the ticket counter, how can it be checked? The weapon must be in a hard sided, locking case, unloaded and no ammunition in the same case. The airlines are not permitted to put a tag on the outside advertising that there is a weapon enclosed (thus almost guaranteeing it to be stolen).
DAT60A3 on July 1, 2008 at 8:24 PM
It was Virginia Tech. You probably knew that but I’m a strong advocate of keeping such atrocities specific instead of reducing them to generalities.
Legitimate gun owners will respect boundaries not those up to no good. The only legitimate case I can make for prohibiting firearms in airports is that security is unable to differentiate between those attempting to get into the system and those simply dropping off passengers.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Thanks for the context.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 8:26 PM
I would not have a problem with concealed carry to the airport. I can envision security on the far side of the security screening area being beefed up just in case a legal firearm is stolen and an idiot rushes towards the security gate. That could be ugly.
Zorro on July 1, 2008 at 8:28 PM
With the proper permits. . I say let ‘em on the plane too.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Sorry. I should have elaborated. The actual AIRPORT is nice. Two of my favorite lounges are there. What makes it a shiiithole is the crap that goes down around the airport. And I’m sure it gets inside the airport occassionaly. Anyway, the point is….College Park is a D-U-M-P and I would want to carry a gun around too if I had to work there.
malan89 on July 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM
You’re either giving “legitimate” gun owners too much credit, or categorizing the many licensed owners who are irresponsible (in the least) as illegitimate.
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 8:37 PM
I think you were right in the first place. The symbolic of an attack on a crowded area is going to be the same, whether it’s an airport or a mall. The guards at the airport make that less safe for the attacker. Soft targets are best for making statements, like gun free zones.
In all events, there is no need for a getaway, just maximum carnage.
Carry wherever you want, it’s safer for us all — Only liberals don’t understand why.
tarpon on July 1, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Huh? I’m afraid you’ll have to elaborate because I don’t understand your post.
The gun owners I know (and all the concealed carry folks) are responsible citizens. The concealed crowd all have a legitimate reason to carry a concealed weapon.
I suspect you are reading too much into my use of the term “legitimate” which I used only to denote those gunowners with registered firearms as following the rules while criminals and terrorists will not. Hard to see how you could equate that with irresponsible gun owners being illegitimate.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM
How many shootings have there been in airports, schools, and other places that guns have been banned?
How many shootings have there been at gun shows?
Discuss among yourselves.
Tantor on July 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM
I agree.
“Yes sir, we have your ticket confirmed. Would you like to sit in armed or unarmed?”
Seems to me we could dismantle nearly the entire TSA with that one policy change.
JohnTant on July 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Personally, if someone passed the riggers, and they should be extensive, to acquire a conceal-carry permit, they should be allowed to carry it anywhere a police officer is allowed to carry it.
Weebork on July 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Allahpundit
In Georgia it isn’t a concealed permit, its a Gerogia Firearms License. With a GFL you can carry a handgun concealed or open, makes no difference.
And I see no reason why any place should be offlimits. Having a license is based on the presumption that you are a law abiding citizen; why is a law abiding citizen more likely to start shooting in a school or courtroom than on the street or in the mall?
johnsteele on July 1, 2008 at 8:58 PM
I’m as pro gun as anybody, but I don’t know about that. A small hole in the aircraft fuselage, say as big around as a quarter would be scary but unlikely to cause decompression. But if you blow out a window at altitude, that’s a problem.
Maxx on July 1, 2008 at 8:58 PM
… Its a sensitive place. I doubt any judge would disagree.
AbaddonsReign on July 1, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Gun owners are still members of the public and therefore subject to being just as stupid as any other member. All this deification for people who simply exercise their Second Amendment rights is stupid…and unnecessary.
Being a citizen does not make you superhuman. I CAN BE THE BIGGEST IDIOT AND THE WORLD AND I STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN AND OPERATE A FIREARM ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL LAWS.
That’s how it should be. The Second Amendment extends to the irresponsible as well as highly capable. Your qualifications do not matter. You have your rights just for waking up in the morning.
The Race Card on July 1, 2008 at 9:01 PM
Yes, and let’s not forget our friend Smeaton! Can you imagine what he would have done if he were packing? ‘Course it wouldn’t have been as cool.
Weight of Glory on July 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM
You’d call me crazy if I suggested that all licensed drivers were responsible and likely to follow the rules. I’d argue that it’s the same for those gun owners with a concealed carry permit. I agree with The Race Card in that:
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Seems to me the TSA should be dismantled to get rid of the Wackenhut Security legacy. In this era, I really don’t have a problem with being “screened” before getting on a plane although I think it overkill. What I object to is that we aren’t doing that screening professionally.
Showing an ID to a GED employee of the TSA before going through a metal detector is meaningless. The whole reason for these measures is the 9/11/01 atrocities. The strategy should be in preventing further terrorist attacks when we essentially have set up procedures to protect the WTC.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Is the gun in the picture a Sig?
jdun on July 1, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Once the Second amendment is incorporated, we will at least have open carry in all states.
jdun on July 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM
It makes little sense to say someone has passed xyz standards and been determined to be law abiding so they can carry a firearm, to then say in this or that location you’re automatically a danger to everyone.
aikidoka on July 1, 2008 at 9:17 PM
This has been the song-and-dance every time a stupid gun regulation (the assault weapons ban, statewide concealed carry, local preemption, you name it) comes along.
1. Proposal to loosen regulation.
2. “Blood will run in the streets!”
3. Regulation loosened.
4. Blood fails to run in the streets. Crime goes down.
Every time. You’d think people would learn.
vonspringer on July 1, 2008 at 9:18 PM
If there are no metal detectors, then the area is open for all law-abiding activites.
Criminals will not obey whatever you propose if there is no partilciar enforcement, so, unless the airport puts the metal detectors at the front doors, the issue is a familiar “Guns are dangerous!” misunderstanding.
Maniacs are dangerous.
With guns.
Or even boxcutters.
profitsbeard on July 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Then your real issue is with the process that grants who gets carry/conceal authorization.
Isn’t that really a distractor when this thread deals with where the C/C folks can carry? I’m working off the assumption that any C/C folks at the airport have been fully vetted. You’re back to questioning if they should be given the license in the first place.
Tip for ya- why don’t you find out how many crimes were committed with guns by their registered owners as opposed to crimes committed otherwise before you want to attack those that are following the rules.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 9:25 PM
I CAN BE THE BIGGEST IDIOT AND THE WORLD AND I STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN AND OPERATE A FIREARM
ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL LAWS.The Race Card on July 1, 2008 at 9:26 PM
I’m as pro gun as Ted Nugent, but I would be fine with restrictions on bringing loaded guns into airports. (Well, ok, I’m not sure about his opinion on this matter) Airports aren’t “gun free zones” so the people there aren’t without protection. There are already plenty of well armed people walking about the place, i.e. airport security, and they aren’t “minutes away”. I wouldn’t object to even restricting permit holders from bringing guns in, and I doubt such a limitation would be found unconstitutional.
Ash on July 1, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Stating this only to stoke the fire-
If somebody is toting a gun they have registered with the authorities, why should they be prevented from doing so in public? We all carry cell phones (registered through our providers) in public. We all drive cars (registered through government organizations). Why shouldn’t we all be allowed to carry a firearm in public?
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 9:42 PM
There are restrictions to where we may use our cellular phones, or where we may drive our cars. They are not permitted in all public areas.
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Wow, a “gun free zone”. Those always work don’t they?
Idiots.
GarandFan on July 1, 2008 at 9:57 PM
GarandFan at 9:57 PM-
“Gun free zones” emanate from “brain free skulls“.
profitsbeard on July 1, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Really?
Where is that? There are places where we are told not to use them but please tell me where (outside blast zones) where cell phone use is really restricted.
I’d love to find that place.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Begs the question…..
IF I pass the Gov’t back ground check REQUIRED TO LEGALLY OWN AND CARRY A HANDGUN, how then can the SAME GOV’T RESTRICT WHERE I CAN CARRY IT??
I’m OK at the Mall, but not in the airport???
Makes sense to me……./sarc
Talon on July 1, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Florida concealed carry citizens can carry in non-secure areas of the airport. Hasn’t been a problem. Of course, you know me — I think the TSA should go away and security should be up to the airport and the individual airlines. Let them make their own policies about carrying on planes.
Mark Jaquith on July 1, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Come on, Atlanta… let’s put the “terminal” back in “terminal”!
greggriffith on July 1, 2008 at 10:38 PM
IIRC, that idiot who wore a circuit board with a hunk of playdough stuck to it (looked like a bomb) to the airport was not apprehended for quite a few minutes. The whole “the police will protect you” myth applies to airports too, even if there are a few more armed folks around. They may keep the body count in the low two digits, is all. We should be allowed to defend ourselves in airports the same as anywhere else.
TexasDan on July 1, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I would absolutely fly on a concealed carry airline, to the exclusion of all others.
TexasDan on July 1, 2008 at 10:47 PM
he wouldn’t need a gun.. just a c4 belt and get to some major airport early monday morning and wait in line with his suitcase while everyone is taking off their shoes to get through the metal detectors.. wait for a big crowd.. wouldn’t be too long.. and BOOM.
wouldn’t be as sexy as a suicide airplane crash into a building.. but the emotional damage would be done..
I mean, I felt safe every time I took my shoe off to walk through an airport security checkpoint… /sarc..
DaveC on July 1, 2008 at 10:50 PM
This issue is about state versus local laws. The State of Georgia passed a law making it legal to carry a concealed weapon in areas which include the terminal of the Atlanta airport. City of Atlanta officials do not want the state law to apply there and have stated that anyone carrying a concealed weapon there will be arrested. The sponsor of the law has said that he will be there tomorrow carrying his concealed weapon and if arrested will sue the city.
Realistically the state law will override any local ordinances, so the city of Atlanta will not be able to enforce a law prohibiting carrying of weapons in an area where the state has said it was legal.
Buford on July 1, 2008 at 10:53 PM
How come every time a gun law is changed to enhance the rights of concealed carry holders the MSM predicts a bloodbath. In Tx you can carry in the area of airports that are outside the secure area and no bloodbaths have occurred.
ricor on July 1, 2008 at 10:54 PM
This will end in the Georgia Supreme Court, where the Atlanta ordinance will be overturned. The decision will have nothing to do with the Heller decision, but more with whether the state has the right to pass laws that override local laws.
Buford on July 1, 2008 at 10:58 PM
It’s a convenience thing. They make it very hard to carry when you work for Uncle Sam (or a school). It is the reason I have a gunsafe in my truck… AND STILL break the law when I go to class because I have a handgun (locked inside a safe, inside my truck) on a school grounds. That is just class… if I go to work I don’t even bother carrying at all. Anytime I have to go on post, I have to leave the gun at home… no matter how “secure” it is.
In TN, you can’t carry in a resturant because they sell alcohol for consumption the premises (even if you don’t drink). Legal carry while picking someone up or dropping them off at the airport is no big deal. Review violent crime stats for concealed weapons permit holders… you will find them much, much lower than the general population (prob approaching ZERO in most states).
BadBrad on July 1, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I don’t understand why some are making such a big deal about having a concealed pistol at an airport. Out here in Oregon we can carry in the airports as long as we don’t go into the secure areas with one. I don’t recall there ever being any problems caused by a person with a CHL carrying in an airport here. Like usual, it’s more scare tactics from the clueless and uninformed.
Afterimage on July 1, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Some rules. I guess you could argue that the planes are not exactly “public”, but they are, for many purposes, considered to be.
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I’ve carried legally in my city’s airport, in Texas. It’s simply not an issue. The non-secure area is akin to a mall.
As others have said, if it were against the law to do this, it would take more than a sign to stop someone who wanted to shoot someone. They’d have to set up metal detectors and x-rays at the exterior doors and screen all the luggage as it’s being brought into the terminal.
juliesa on July 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Better…..Who owns the terminal?
Just because the public uses the facility shouldn’t matter. The property owner should have the last word. The public might frequent my place of business. That doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean I have to allow weapons in the building.
(Before everyone jumps, I’m a CC permit holder). Not sure about Georgia/Atlanta how that works. In Texas we also have the ‘right’ to take a weapon on public transportation (part of the gun legislation here), but at the same time the carrier has the ‘right’ to refuse to service to gun carriers. Seems like a simple solution for Georgia to simply give the last word to the property owner.
Limerick on July 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM
The City of Atlanta.
malan89 on July 1, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Yeah, but the concourses are leased to individual common carriers. No different then someone renting a home, or leasing one. Seems the carriers would be the trump card.
Limerick on July 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Statistics overrule opinions, in this case, where citizens who have been reviewed by state police and international background checks for the right to own and carry are much, much better citizens that the general population.
I personally would rather have this with me in the airport than almost anywhere else.
For perspective on the value of your gun ban in airports, see the murder statistics for “gun-free” lib utopias Washington, D.C. and Richie “Squeaky” Daley’s Chicago.
Jaibones on July 2, 2008 at 12:03 AM
I didn’t plagiarize; I swear!
Jaibones on July 2, 2008 at 12:06 AM
I understand your point. I was simply noting that the problem with disallowing the carrying of arms is that they create “gun free zones” which has been shown to leave those within said zones without the means to defend themselves. Since airports aren’t “gun free zones” that problem does not arise.
For this reason I wouldn’t have kittens if the courts, as the Supreme Court hinted, allowed this restriction under the 2nd. I guess I am reflecting more of a “pick your battles” attitude.
Ash on July 2, 2008 at 1:05 AM
LOL
Ash on July 2, 2008 at 1:08 AM
So you know a lot of irresponsible licensed gun owners, do you?
Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 1:35 AM
According to an air marshal friend, a bullet through the fuselage would be unlikely to cause decompression. They are much more concerned about an errant bullet coming in contact with the hydraulic and electrical lines that run through the walls.
photom on July 2, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Probably not, Johan. I wouldn’t invest a lot of effort on that one.
Jaibones on July 2, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Okay, but once again, terrorists don’t care about the law, do they? Having a law in place to prevent guns in the terminal isn’t going to stop someone intent on breaking that law. I guess that’s a corollary on the “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” axiom.
On the other hand, if you have licensed carriers present, it actually reduces the threat of a massacre a la Virginia Tech. The rogue gunman won’t survive as long and won’t be able to inflict as many casualties.
The only people who fear an armed populace are criminals and corrupt governments.
Beo on July 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Absolutely true, for some reason I hadn’t even thought of that. Of course if the situation is one like 9/11 where you believe the hi-jacker’s intent is to down the plane anyway, a few stray bullets would still be the lesser threat.
Maxx on July 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM
There is no constitutional provision for infringing our RKBA based on some arbitrary standard defining “sensitive areas”.
LimeyGeek on July 2, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Comment pages: