Telperion said:
Why did Georgia Carry sue in Federal court on a civil rights complaint when a statutory interpretation case in state court (over a state law) would seem the most direct route?
The lawsuit against the City of Atlanta, Atlanta's mayor, Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, and the GM at Hartsfield is first and foremost a section 1983 suit. Section 1983 is found in United States Code, the collection of federal laws for the US. 42 USC 1983 allows for civil action for deprivation of rights. Ben DeCosta conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his rights when he promised that State Representative Tim Bearden, the lead sponsor of the law under review and plaintiff in this case, would be arrested if he arrived at the airport lawfully armed. DeCosta and Franklin subsequently held a televised press conference announcing the creation of official policy that would violate a visitors 4th and 14th amendment rights if lawfully armed about the non-secure areas of the facility. This constitutes deprivation of rights. Therefore the lawsuit must be tried in US courts. GCO seeks not only declaratory judgement as to whether firearm carry on one's person is legal at the airport. I believe they want DeCosta and Franklin personally liable for flagrantly violating the rights of Georgians while performing the official duties of their posts. I think this would send a clear signal to other public officials who aspire to attain office and practice social engineering which runs counter to established law.
GatorDude said:
I don't think that Georgia Carry chose their battle very wisely here. Generally, the airport is crawling with police and security personnel and the general public does not see the need for a gun at the airport. People can see why you would want a gun on the MARTA transit system, but not at the airport. I'd hate to see a losing proposition set a bad precedent.
Are we concerned now with what the general public "needs" to see? Or are we concerned with civil rights of Georgians and the rule of law as written into Georgia Code Annotated?
Many thousands of people lobbied their legislators tirelessly to see that this law was written into the books. Those same people, this poster included, are not happy to see their will thwarted by the personally held beliefs of a few appointed officials at the airport and in Atlanta City Hall. Georgia Carry absolutely did the right thing by not standing idle while the rights of Georgians are trampled on by these tyrants. What are you thinking by drawing the public opinion into an equation of rights? We are far past the stage where the public is asked for their input while considering whether certain conduct is permissible. This is purely an issue of law and the disrespect of the legislative process.
Not only that but when did you last fly and was it in the evening? The areas outside the airport is deserted in the night time hours and there isn't anyone, anyone, on patrol outdoors in the lots, etc. Not a single person. A platoon of officers is the least that is needed to police a facility that has several square miles of public grounds, and HJAIA hasn't an armed presence outside the main building. Plus half of the lighting systems are dark in the lots and surrounding areas. I have to disagree in the strongest terms with your assertion that the airport is "crawling" with security and police personnel. Visitors are left most vulnerable while walking to the parking decks in the evening hours and while loading/unloading their vehicles when visitors are few and shadows are long. Besides, there is no legal justification to force me to disarm while there and by doing so place my well being into the hands of an institution that isn't legally obligated to provide for it. May I remind you that the mission of Law Enforcement is first and foremost about the collection of evidence to aid in the prosecution of a criminal, not to protect individual members of the public from befalling victim to violent crime.
GatorDude said:
Personally, I'd like to see Georgia governed in such a manner that guns aren't needed.
Wow. I'm not sure how to respond to such a remark. I will venture to say that in all likelihood, there isn't a place in all of America where this would aptly apply. So I guess Atlanta isn't in bad company.
As others have astutely pointed out, yesterday's ruling was only within the scope of a request for a temporary restraining order for Atlanta to ceast and desist the arrest of license holders until the trial has concluded. In spite of the creative journalistic license of AJC, Chicago Tribune, and others, the battle is far from over. In fact, it's yet to begin in earnest.