Exit question: Is an airport terminal a “sensitive place”?

There is no constitutional provision for infringing our RKBA based on some arbitrary standard defining “sensitive areas”.

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

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.

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?

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.

So you know a lot of irresponsible licensed gun owners, do you?

Johan Klaus on July 2, 2008 at 1:35 AM

Probably not, Johan. I wouldn’t invest a lot of effort on that one.

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

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.

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

So you know a lot of irresponsible licensed gun owners, do you?

I would absolutely fly on a concealed carry airline, to the exclusion of all others.

TexasDan on July 1, 2008 at 10:47 PM

LOL

highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 9:42 PM

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.

BadBrad on July 1, 2008 at 11:07 PM

I didn’t plagiarize; I swear!

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

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.

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.

Better…..Who owns the terminal?

The City of Atlanta.

Exit question: Is an airport terminal a “sensitive place”?

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.

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.

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

Some rules. I guess you could argue that the planes are not exactly “public”, but they are, for many purposes, considered to be.

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).

Coming soon to a post-Heller Supreme Court near you:

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.

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.

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?

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..

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

I would absolutely fly on a concealed carry airline, to the exclusion of all others.