The airport has to be different?
(2nd Amendment Ho!)Gun on a Plane!
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
-
The Spartan
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: 2005-03-12 05:56pm
- Location: Houston
This is just stupid. There are already places you can't take a weapon (a courthouse for instance) even if you're in a concealed carry state and have a license.
The airport has to be different?
The airport has to be different?
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
Even with Broomstick's entirely sensible proposal that airports be subject to Federal law alone, would a flat ban on guns outside of 'secured areas' in an airport meet a Heller test?
My guess is 'no', simply because both terrorists and criminals have repeatedly shown themselves willing and able to disregard court pronouncements on the subject, and that the govt wouldn't be able to meet the 'strict scrutiny' requirement.
That said, the real question is whether or not the local airport is legally entitled to fucking ignore the state legislature.
Perhaps Broomstick can offer some insider viewpoint, but so far I'd say the answer is 'no'.
My guess is 'no', simply because both terrorists and criminals have repeatedly shown themselves willing and able to disregard court pronouncements on the subject, and that the govt wouldn't be able to meet the 'strict scrutiny' requirement.
That said, the real question is whether or not the local airport is legally entitled to fucking ignore the state legislature.
Perhaps Broomstick can offer some insider viewpoint, but so far I'd say the answer is 'no'.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Oderint dum metuant
Oderint dum metuant
-
Broomstick
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 28846
- Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
- Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
It's an interesting question. Post 9/11 a number of states attempted to severely restrict flight training, impose various limitations on who could take flight lessons, and even ban some rather common (and sensible) training practices.
Every single attempt was shot down by the courts without ever having to go as high as the SCotUS. Airplanes and flying are under Federal jurisdiction. Some state requirements regarding airplane registration and sale stand unopposed (luxury and sales taxes, mostly), but that's it.
Many crimes committed on airport property that would normally be a local violation become Federal simply by virtue of it being an airport.
Airport security is unquestionably Federal not only because of interstate commerce, but because any airport may function as a port-of-entry from a foreign country.
Federal laws trump state laws. In some circumstances, state/local laws can be more restrictive than Federal, and matters of security are one area that can occur, but the Federal government had long maintained that a patchwork of state regulations would lead to a mess given how swiftly and far aircraft can travel. The pilots - including general aviation, which are five times more numerous than the airline pilots - also want consistency. Off-hand, I'd say the Feds - FAA, TSA, air traffic control - and the airlines, AND the "alphabet orgs" - AOPA, NBAA, EAA, et al - will all come down on the side of consistency AND for Federal and not local regulation. They pulled together after 9/11 to prevent hysterical local politicians from fucking with air commerce and they largely got what they wanted. I would expect that if they teamed up again gun regulations on airport grounds would wind up under Federal and not local jurisdiction - especially since, in regards to scheduled airline traffic, it is already Federal jurisdiction.
Every single attempt was shot down by the courts without ever having to go as high as the SCotUS. Airplanes and flying are under Federal jurisdiction. Some state requirements regarding airplane registration and sale stand unopposed (luxury and sales taxes, mostly), but that's it.
Many crimes committed on airport property that would normally be a local violation become Federal simply by virtue of it being an airport.
Airport security is unquestionably Federal not only because of interstate commerce, but because any airport may function as a port-of-entry from a foreign country.
Federal laws trump state laws. In some circumstances, state/local laws can be more restrictive than Federal, and matters of security are one area that can occur, but the Federal government had long maintained that a patchwork of state regulations would lead to a mess given how swiftly and far aircraft can travel. The pilots - including general aviation, which are five times more numerous than the airline pilots - also want consistency. Off-hand, I'd say the Feds - FAA, TSA, air traffic control - and the airlines, AND the "alphabet orgs" - AOPA, NBAA, EAA, et al - will all come down on the side of consistency AND for Federal and not local regulation. They pulled together after 9/11 to prevent hysterical local politicians from fucking with air commerce and they largely got what they wanted. I would expect that if they teamed up again gun regulations on airport grounds would wind up under Federal and not local jurisdiction - especially since, in regards to scheduled airline traffic, it is already Federal jurisdiction.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
rant
I've spoken (via forum) to Rep. Bearden before, and have been following this from the beginning.
Background:
Part of Georgia law previously prohibited civilians from possessing weapons on public transportation or in the terminals thereof. Another part defined public transportation terminals to include (among other things) airports, bus stops, and train stations.
Georgia law also prohibits carrying firearms "to or while at" a "public gathering"; "publicly owned or leased buildings" are also considered public gatherings for purposes of this law.
A third section of Georgia law prohibits any lower level of government (city, county, etc) from making any regulation concerning the carriage of firearms. They may, however, regulate the discharge of them (for situations excluding lawful defense of self or others). This is called "preemption".
The City of Atlanta used to have laws on the books prohibiting firearms in certain areas, in direct violation of state preemption. The city was sued, and lost; the laws were struck. This happened only a couple months ago. Similar restrictions in other cities have also been struck down.
Now:
On July 1, House Bill 89 went into effect. Among other things, it allowed people with a Firearms License (essentially, a carry permit) to carry firearms on public transportation, provided that they did not do so in a place prohibited by federal law (ie, beyond the security checkpoint). The new law also contains language to the effect that they can do so "notwithstanding" (ie, despite) other restrictions. Also remember that Rep. Bearden was the author and chief sponsor of this bill--he knows exactly what it says.
Mayor Franklin and Mr. DeCosta (airport manager) immediately declared that they were making the airport a "gun-free" zone, and then later tried to justify it by saying that the airport is a public building and therefore constitutes a "public gathering".
A lawsuit was filed that afternoon, on the grounds that Franklin and DeCosta were violating the preemption statute by attempting to regulate firearms carry in a place specifically declared legal by state law, and that they were threatening to illegally arrest Mr. Bearden accordingly. There is video (currently trying to find it) of Ms. Franklin attempting to avoid being served the lawsuit.
It is pretty much a given that they will once again be found in violation of state law, for the second time in months. I'm tired of seeing city officials deciding that they're above the law, and that they can make up whatever rules they want to--especially right after being smacked down in court for doing the same thing.
And personally, I just don't get the "ZOMG! Guns at the airports!!one!" kneejerk from the media. First, licensed citizens (myself included) carry firearms in public every day without incident. Such citizens are among the most law-abiding groups in the country--in fact you are more likely to be the victim of an attack by a police officer than you are a licensed/permitted citizen. The thought that they present any more of a threat at an airport than they do at, say, Wendy's or the grocery store, has no basis in fact.
Second, many other states allow their residents to carry in the non-secure areas of airports, and in many other places. In fact, Georgia's "off-limits" places are among the most strict in the country... they're worse than even California and Massachusetts. But yet, licensed citizens do not commit crimes in those places.
Third, "gun-free zones" just aren't. Anyone who believes that simply declaring "no guns allowed here" and not actually checking on it prevents crime needs a reality check. The fact is, "gun-free" zones are only respected by the people who (a) know about them, and (b) choose to follow them. They provide no real deterrent whatsoever against someone who intends to bring in a gun and commit a crime--after all, someone who is willing to commit murder/rape/assault/robbery despite the threat of felony charges is hardly going to be deterred by the legal equivalent of someone wagging a finger and saying "uh-uh, can't bring your gun here!" If this truly worked, we could simply declare places to be "robbery-free zones" or "rape-free zones" and crime would disappear overnight.
Fourth, the right to carry a firearm for personal protection is recognized (to varying degrees) by 48 out of 50 states. The individuals who carry do so because they realize they may be attacked at any time. We see evidence all the time of crimes being committed in "gun-free zones"; for example, every single rape, assault, mugging, or murder that occurred in Georgia at a bus or train stop, church, public building (including parking decks), restaurant that served alcohol, or within 1000 feet of a school (which includes almost all of the crime-ridden historic district of my current hometown), was in a place of-limits to firearms. Suzanna Hupp lost her parents to a murderer in such a "gun-free zone". Yet people continue to plug their fingers in their ears and say "there's no reason you need a gun there!" The vast majority of the time they'd be right; I have never yet needed to use my gun to defend myself--and I sincerely hope I never have to. But all it takes is one criminal, one person to come in and threaten to hurt or kill you, your family, or another innocent person... and all of a sudden, you have a really, really good reason to need that gun.
In short, it's a consistency thing--if you acknowledge that people can carry guns for lawful self-defense purposes, and you allow them to do so in some places, you can't just arbitrarily decide "well, you can have it there, but I don't think you need it here". You can't simply say "no guns allowed" and expect that to actually be true without actually verifying it to be so.
/rant
I've spoken (via forum) to Rep. Bearden before, and have been following this from the beginning.
Background:
Part of Georgia law previously prohibited civilians from possessing weapons on public transportation or in the terminals thereof. Another part defined public transportation terminals to include (among other things) airports, bus stops, and train stations.
Georgia law also prohibits carrying firearms "to or while at" a "public gathering"; "publicly owned or leased buildings" are also considered public gatherings for purposes of this law.
A third section of Georgia law prohibits any lower level of government (city, county, etc) from making any regulation concerning the carriage of firearms. They may, however, regulate the discharge of them (for situations excluding lawful defense of self or others). This is called "preemption".
The City of Atlanta used to have laws on the books prohibiting firearms in certain areas, in direct violation of state preemption. The city was sued, and lost; the laws were struck. This happened only a couple months ago. Similar restrictions in other cities have also been struck down.
Now:
On July 1, House Bill 89 went into effect. Among other things, it allowed people with a Firearms License (essentially, a carry permit) to carry firearms on public transportation, provided that they did not do so in a place prohibited by federal law (ie, beyond the security checkpoint). The new law also contains language to the effect that they can do so "notwithstanding" (ie, despite) other restrictions. Also remember that Rep. Bearden was the author and chief sponsor of this bill--he knows exactly what it says.
Mayor Franklin and Mr. DeCosta (airport manager) immediately declared that they were making the airport a "gun-free" zone, and then later tried to justify it by saying that the airport is a public building and therefore constitutes a "public gathering".
A lawsuit was filed that afternoon, on the grounds that Franklin and DeCosta were violating the preemption statute by attempting to regulate firearms carry in a place specifically declared legal by state law, and that they were threatening to illegally arrest Mr. Bearden accordingly. There is video (currently trying to find it) of Ms. Franklin attempting to avoid being served the lawsuit.
It is pretty much a given that they will once again be found in violation of state law, for the second time in months. I'm tired of seeing city officials deciding that they're above the law, and that they can make up whatever rules they want to--especially right after being smacked down in court for doing the same thing.
And personally, I just don't get the "ZOMG! Guns at the airports!!one!" kneejerk from the media. First, licensed citizens (myself included) carry firearms in public every day without incident. Such citizens are among the most law-abiding groups in the country--in fact you are more likely to be the victim of an attack by a police officer than you are a licensed/permitted citizen. The thought that they present any more of a threat at an airport than they do at, say, Wendy's or the grocery store, has no basis in fact.
Second, many other states allow their residents to carry in the non-secure areas of airports, and in many other places. In fact, Georgia's "off-limits" places are among the most strict in the country... they're worse than even California and Massachusetts. But yet, licensed citizens do not commit crimes in those places.
Third, "gun-free zones" just aren't. Anyone who believes that simply declaring "no guns allowed here" and not actually checking on it prevents crime needs a reality check. The fact is, "gun-free" zones are only respected by the people who (a) know about them, and (b) choose to follow them. They provide no real deterrent whatsoever against someone who intends to bring in a gun and commit a crime--after all, someone who is willing to commit murder/rape/assault/robbery despite the threat of felony charges is hardly going to be deterred by the legal equivalent of someone wagging a finger and saying "uh-uh, can't bring your gun here!" If this truly worked, we could simply declare places to be "robbery-free zones" or "rape-free zones" and crime would disappear overnight.
Fourth, the right to carry a firearm for personal protection is recognized (to varying degrees) by 48 out of 50 states. The individuals who carry do so because they realize they may be attacked at any time. We see evidence all the time of crimes being committed in "gun-free zones"; for example, every single rape, assault, mugging, or murder that occurred in Georgia at a bus or train stop, church, public building (including parking decks), restaurant that served alcohol, or within 1000 feet of a school (which includes almost all of the crime-ridden historic district of my current hometown), was in a place of-limits to firearms. Suzanna Hupp lost her parents to a murderer in such a "gun-free zone". Yet people continue to plug their fingers in their ears and say "there's no reason you need a gun there!" The vast majority of the time they'd be right; I have never yet needed to use my gun to defend myself--and I sincerely hope I never have to. But all it takes is one criminal, one person to come in and threaten to hurt or kill you, your family, or another innocent person... and all of a sudden, you have a really, really good reason to need that gun.
In short, it's a consistency thing--if you acknowledge that people can carry guns for lawful self-defense purposes, and you allow them to do so in some places, you can't just arbitrarily decide "well, you can have it there, but I don't think you need it here". You can't simply say "no guns allowed" and expect that to actually be true without actually verifying it to be so.
/rant