(Atlanta) Airport Gun Suit Dismissed

[k-frame]

Well...fudgecicles...not a huge surprise, although it looked like an interesting test case.

(Atlanta) Airport Gun Suit Dismissed
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/me...irport_guns.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Judges dismisses lawsuit seeking to allows guns in airport
By RHONDA COOK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Saturday, September 27, 2008

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by an advocacy group trying to force Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport to let licensed gun owners bring firearms into non-secure areas.

U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob ruled Friday that GeorgiaCarry.org presented no “material facts” to support the group’s argument that a recent change in state law allowed weapons in areas outside security checkpoints of the world’s busiest airport.
Recent headlines:

Since July 1, Georgia law has allowed weapons on MARTA, in public parks and into restaurants that serve alcohol by people licensed to carry.

The gun group sued Atlanta and the airport the day the law took effect, contending that the allowance in the statute for “public transportation” included Hartsfield-Jackson.

The attorney and the head of GeorgiaCarry.org could not be reached by telephone Saturday for comment.

In a prepared statement, the city said, “We are pleased with the court’s ruling and that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport will continue to remain a safe, secure, gun-free environment for its almost 90 million passengers a year.”

Shoob had already declined to issue a temporary order stopping the airport and Atlanta police from arresting anyone caught with guns in the terminal, saying allowing concealed weapons into non-secure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson would make the airport less safe and require it to substantially revise its security procedures.

City officials have said 80 percent of the airport is “non secure.”

In his order Friday, Shoob wrote the July 1 change in the law specifically does not include the airport because the statute includes an exemption that is included in another part of the Georgia Code.

 

[Intrepid Dad]

In a prepared statement, the city said, “We are pleased with the court’s ruling and that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport will continue to remain a safe, secure, gun-free environment for its almost 90 million passengers a year.”

I really hope this quote doesn't come back to haunt them. Didn't the administrators at Virginia Tech say something similar?

 

[Standing Wolf]

U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob ruled Friday that GeorgiaCarry.org presented no “material facts” to support the group’s argument that a recent change in state law allowed weapons in areas outside security checkpoints of the world’s busiest airport.

Government looks after the interests of government first, last, and always.

 

[txgho1911]

This may speed it up the chain to the appeals court level?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

That sets an extremely bad precedent for future court cases.

 

[TooTaxed]

All of our massacres have occurred in known "gun-free environments". The suicidal bad guys want to shoot as many helpless "sheep" as possible before someone with a gun shows up to end it. SOMEONE on site should be armed in all "gun-free" places simply to protect those there...and many times that will be the CCW holder. (I'm one.)

That said, I'm not too concerned about having CCW in places were armed staff are on duty...and I assume the Atlanta Airport is one. However, it's better if the armed staff are not uniformed.

 

[ilbob]

That sets an extremely bad precedent for future court cases.

I see federal court as being a bad venue for a determination of what state law means.

 

[TAB]

it should have never went to federal court in the 1st place.

 

[garymc]

Well, either they didn't lawyer very well - presented no “material facts” - or they need to go back to the legislature and get it made crystal clear.

 

[MIL-DOT]

It's interesting that the judge decided the law didn't allow CCW in un-secured areas of the airport, when the legislator behind the new law said it did !!! We're not talking about founding fathers that have been dead for 200 years, this guy's still here, clearly stating the intent!! This is the most blatant example of judicial activism/interference.

 

[TCB in TN]

It's interesting that the judge decided the law didn't allow CCW in un-secured areas of the airport, when the legislator behind the new law said it did !!! We're not talking about founding fathers that have been dead for 200 years, this guy's still here, clearly stating the intent!! This is the most blatant example of judicial activism/interference.

Bingo, as perfect an example of judicial activism as one could ask for!

 

[pyromaster]

If you look at his records, Judge Marvin Shoob is notoriously anti-gun and very frequently overturned by the court of Appeals. I expect this case to be no different.

GCO intends to appeal.
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2008/09/26/federal-court-dismisses-airport-case/

 

[TAB]

Bingo, as perfect an example of judicial activism as one could ask for!

or maybe it was an example of a legislator that wrote a bill and did not understand the legal ramifications of it... they never do stupid things like that... never.

 

[gc70]

I am glad to know that airports are not part of the public transportation system. Maybe Judge Shoob could arrange for a rebate of taxes that have been handed over to non-public facilities like airports.

 

[Samuel Adams]

The case will be applealed. In addition, for those on this forum living in Georgia who are not members of GCO - join.

 

[TCB in TN]

or maybe it was an example of a legislator that wrote a bill and did not understand the legal ramifications of it... they never do stupid things like that... never.

Might try looking up the information about the floor discussion of this bill. They made a law to do just what they said. Judge over reached royal and will likely be made to look like the fool he is!

 

[TAB]

Floor discussion means nothing... what is actually in the bill is what matters.

The guy wanted to measure something...but wanted his mommy do be the judge... she told him to put it away. Now I do see the judge acting political in the case, but not about firearms. this was something that never should been in federal court. It should have been handled in GA, by GA.

 

[TooTaxed]

I'm not that convinced about Georgia having jurisdiction. Airports are part of the federal transportation system...few of those airplanes have destinations and originations within the state of Georgia.

 

[jonmerritt]

gun free zone, perfect place for a psyco to slaughter a bunch of unarmed people.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

So is this over and done?


Or do we have recourse?

 

[Samuel Adams]

It will be appealed to a Federal Appealate court (The only higher is the US Supreme). If you read GCO's 'Amended Complaint' we argue that Atlanta violates the Militia Clause of the US Constitution and, the 4th and, the 14th Amendments. That is why it was taken to a federal court instead of a Georgia court.

If we prevail at the Appealate level, Atlanta would have to mount an appeal to the US Supreme to continue their illegal actions.

www.georgiacarry.org

 

[LAR-15]

In a prepared statement, the city said, “We are pleased with the court’s ruling and that Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport will continue to remain a safe, secure, gun-free environment for its almost 90 million passengers a year.”

So those cops there are carrying squirt guns?

 

[TCB in TN]

I'm not that convinced about Georgia having jurisdiction. Airports are part of the federal transportation system...few of those airplanes have destinations and originations within the state of Georgia.

Unsecured areas are "property" of the state or city that owns the air port. Which gives the State Legislature the right to make laws to govern those areas.

 

[RangerHAAF]

I'm confident that the dismissal will be overturned. The headguys at GA Carry are lawyers who mainly spend their time suing local governments to overturn their gun control laws and up until this dismissal, their record was unbeaten.

 

[rsilvers]

I am not sure you can bring new facts into the appeal. The appeal court will just decide if the Snoop judge ruled appropriately, given what he was presented with originally. It would seem they were under lawyered and blew it.