(2nd Amendment Ho!)Gun on a Plane!

[Mr Bean]

Ak-47's for Everyone!

ATLANTA — The nation's busiest airport dueled with gun rights advocates Tuesday over whether a new Georgia state law allows visitors to carry firearms at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

City officials in charge of the airport declared it a "gun-free zone" when a law allowing people to carry guns on public transit and other places took effect Tuesday. Gun rights supporters, including a state legislator who helped pass the law, quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the designation.

"My message is simple: Leave your firearms at home," airport general manager Ben DeCosta told reporters at a news conference.

Atlanta officials said anyone carrying a gun at the airport could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor.

The new state law allows people with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns into restaurants, state parks and on public transportation.

John Monroe, an attorney for the gun rights backers who filed the lawsuit, argued the Atlanta airport qualifies as public transportation. There are also restaurants in the terminal, which Monroe said should be accessible to gun-toting visitors under the new law.

Rep. Tim Bearden, a Republican from Villa Rica and a former police officer, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Bearden sponsored the state law.

He had told a newspaper he would carry a concealed weapon to the airport Tuesday when he picked up his family. But he told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday morning, "There will be no reason for any confrontation at the airport."

The gun group argues that weapons should be allowed in the terminal up to the point where passengers pass through security to board their flights. The parking lot is off limits under the state law, but it allows travelers to carry a gun on MARTA trains and buses, which run directly to the airport.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said citizens can't bring guns into the terminal and argued that airports remain attractive targets for terrorism.

Allowing citizens to carry firearms "would create an environment that would endanger millions of people," she said.

Franklin said she will lobby Congress to withhold federal funds from facilities that allow firearms on their premises.

Do anyone ask to put anything in your luggage? Bombs in your shoe? Lets rub you down for C-4 traces, Nope, good, is that a terrorist soda your drinking? No liquids on the flight sir Nope, Ahh your bringing your M-16 with you? Fine by us as long as it fits in the over-head compartment sir, have a nice flight.

(Yes I know they are not pushing to let people bring guns on planes but the imagery is great, and since it's Atlanta there's a chance the gun-toting rednecks could be allowed back into the airport again.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Rep. Tim Bearden, a Republican from Villa Rica and a former police officer, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Bearden sponsored the state law.

He had told a newspaper he would carry a concealed weapon to the airport Tuesday when he picked up his family. But he told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday morning, "There will be no reason for any confrontation at the airport."

If he wears a shirt with LED's on it, there probably will be a problem.

[Ender]

We don't let people carry around fucking shampoo bottles, but guns are A-Okay? Jesus Christ. No weapons, nothing that can potentially be used as a weapon. What part of this is so fucking complicated?

[Jaepheth]

Aren't airlines actually private transportation in that they aren't paid for by the government?

[phongn]

Aren't airlines actually private transportation in that they aren't paid for by the government?

That's correct, but most airports are paid for and run by the public sector.

[Enforcer Talen]

My funny story from the USMC was an entire battalion of us, all with M16s, were allowed on the flight, but they confiscated our lighters.

Airport security is strange sometimes.

[Hawkwings]

An entire battalion? How many people was that, and what plane? And were there any non-marines onboard? (besides the flight crew)

[Odin]

We don't let people carry around fucking shampoo bottles, but guns are A-Okay? Jesus Christ. No weapons, nothing that can potentially be used as a weapon. What part of this is so fucking complicated?

Anything can be weaponized.
A pencil can be thrust through your eye into the brain.
Glasses they serve champagne in can be broken and the broken glass be used as a shiv.

Why don't we just have security forces on the plane? Armed officials, 2 at both ends of the plane, and a couple randomly placed among the passengers.

[Hawkwings]

We do. They're called air marshalls. And who knows how effective they are? And there aren't nearly enough of them.

[Odin]

We do. They're called air marshalls. And who knows how effective they are? And there aren't nearly enough of them.

And I suppose there could be an issue with someone who has ill intent becoming one.

[Darth Yoshi]

My funny story from the USMC was an entire battalion of us, all with M16s, were allowed on the flight, but they confiscated our lighters.

Airport security is strange sometimes.

Isn't it policy for M-16s to be kept locked and then treated as checked luggage? At least, that's what I think happened with the MPs that traveled with my group last year.

[Sea Skimmer]

My funny story from the USMC was an entire battalion of us, all with M16s, were allowed on the flight, but they confiscated our lighters.

Airport security is strange sometimes.

They take lighters, and yet you can have THREE books of matches, which will make a damn bigger fire then a bic in the hands of anyone who isn’t as retarded as Richard Reid. Airport security isn’t strange, its just retarded and exists mainly just as a deterrent. If someone wants to attack an airport and kill a bunch of people nothing is going to stop them before they start firing. Really, anyone think a gun ban is going to stop someone from bringing a gun into an airport terminal? Virginia Tech was a gun free zone too, didn't work then, sure wont work at an airport with thousands of cars per hour driving through.

Isn't it policy for M-16s to be kept locked and then treated as checked luggage? At least, that's what I think happened with the MPs that traveled with my group last year.

In 2005 a group of national guardsmen coming home from Iraq through Philadelphia International had six M16 rifles stolen out of checked bags…. The weapons, which constitute illegal machine guns in the hands of even a licensed civilian, were never recovered.

Course I’ve also personally witness someone get out of a car at the terminal gate and walk away, which is a big no no for reasons of traffic flow and secuitry, and all the cop standing around the gate did was put a ticket on it, after about ten minutes. If that had been a car bomb that would have been the end of me and about 200 other people waiting to be picked up.

[Broomstick]

Aren't airlines actually private transportation in that they aren't paid for by the government?

If you own an airplane yourself you can carry a gun on it - although, depending on where you land, there may be legal issues. It's not the fact that they're "private transportation" that makes it a no-no, it's because their "scheduled air service" and Federal regulations bar anyone but a Flight Marshall or Flight Deck Officer from packing heat in the cabin or cockpit area. If you're flying somewhere on the airlines and want to take your guns with you they have to go in checked baggage. As far as I know, however, those regulations do not cover carrying weapons outside of the aircraft and the secured areas leading up to boarding. IIRC, that is covered by local laws.

[Coyote]

Guns on planes are just silly as defense means, since a puncture in a pressurized airplane traveling at altitude is damn dangerous-- even if your intentions are 100% pure.

But then, gun rights advocate that I am, I also don't care too much for the 'pilots with guns' idea. I mean, here's the one guy on the plane who best knows how to fly and land the damn thing, and you're going to send him into combat? Send the co-pilot, chief steward... ideally with something that won't rupture the hull, but I can't think of anything beyond a taser right offhand.

[Broomstick]

A bullet hole in the side of a pressurized airliner won't do jackshit. Maybe generate a little wind. It will NOT blow out, explode, or otherwise wreck the airplane. Modern passenger and cargo style jets in war zones have been shot up and even had an engine blown off by a missile and still were controllable and landed safely. They're a lot tougher than people think they are. The biggest danger in firing a gun on board is hitting innocent bystanders, not damaging the airplane.

The two pilots are both equally qualified to fly the airplane - if they weren't, they wouldn't be in the cockpit of an airliner. "Captain" is just the guy who has been with the company longest and has little to no bearing on his flying skills.

The idea behind the "pilots with guns" is NOT to "send them into combat" but rather for the pilot to defend himself IF an intruder manages to get into the cockpit. The space is quite cramped and close-quarters hand-to-hand combat is impracticable if not impossible.

[phongn]

There are also frangible rounds available, IIRC, that reduce the risk of punching through the hull.

[SVPD]

We do. They're called air marshalls. And who knows how effective they are? And there aren't nearly enough of them.

I have a friend I deployed with who was an air marshall for a time. He said it was basically boring as hell. In terms of law enforcement careers it'd be the last one I want - and I mean dead last. Between his stories about the way the agency is run and the sheer boredom of flying around all the damn time, I wouldn't work there unless it was the last police force on earth.

[Darth Wong]

Anything can be weaponized.
A pencil can be thrust through your eye into the brain.

Tell you what, you come at me with a pencil, and I'll have a 12ga shotgun. Let's see who wins.

[Enforcer Talen]

An entire battalion? How many people was that, and what plane? And were there any non-marines onboard? (besides the flight crew)

It was a chartered flight. A battalion is around a thousand guys, and they gave us 3-4 planes, but there were no civilians aside from the stewardesses.

Isn't it policy for M-16s to be kept locked and then treated as checked luggage? At least, that's what I think happened with the MPs that traveled with my group last year.

We didnt check them - kept hundreds of the things under our feet, next to our bags.

[Glocksman]

Guns and the 2A aside, the real question here is whether or not the airport authorities have the legal right to ignore the laws of the state of Georgia that permit legal CCW holders to carry in an airport outside of the secured (past the security checkpoints for boarding an aircraft) areas.

If they do, then the guy in question is simply grandstanding and begging for a criminal conviction.
If not, then I hope they arrest him and he sues them personally (the court holds them personally liable and order they pay the judgment, not their employer or their employer's insurance) and wins.


The real question here has nothing to do with Heller* and everything to do with the legal status of the airport in question.



*Even this gun nut agrees that SCOTUS intended to permit airports to ban guns if the state permitted them to do so.

[Darth Wong]

*Even this gun nut agrees that SCOTUS intended to permit airports to ban guns if the state permitted them to do so.

Did they actually say anything to that effect?

[Glocksman]

*Even this gun nut agrees that SCOTUS intended to permit airports to ban guns if the state permitted them to do so.

Did they actually say anything to that effect?

In the syllabus, Scalia said this:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

I agree that airports qualify as 'sensitive places'.
The question is whether or not the airport has the legal power to ignore the laws of the state that it's in.

[Darth Wong]

So how does he decide whether a particular restriction is warranted then, since he acknowledges that this right which cannot be infringed ... actually can be?

[Glocksman]

So how does he decide whether a particular restriction is warranted then, since he acknowledges that this right which cannot be infringed ... actually can be?

IANAL, but there are several levels of scrutiny that a court uses in testing a right.

Scalia avoided deciding on a level of scrutiny, but since it *is* a defined right, I'd say that the strict scrutiny standard should apply.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

To use the first amendment as an example, both of us agree that free speech isn't an unlimited right, but I suspect we differ where the line should be drawn.
I feel (as does SCOTUS) that RKBA is not an unlimited right, but 'not unlimited' doesn't equal 'we can ban classes of firearms unilaterally'.

[Broomstick]

What makes the most sense in my opinion is to bring airports under Federal regulations in regards to carrying weapons. This would allow consistency across the US so one may be assured of what the rules are wherever one starts and ends a journey.

There is also the fact that is IS legal to put guns into checked baggage, and that a person who lawfully owns a weapon should not have it arbitrarily confiscated due to, say, a layover or because he/she needs to transfer from one terminal to another or because an airplane is diverted due to some problem. There must also be accommodation for travel in remote areas, particularly in small "bush planes" where there is no separate baggage but weapons are legitimate hunting tools or would reasonably be part of survival gear.

This may make airport rules more restrictive than local laws in some areas... and less restrictive in others. No doubt such a compromise will piss off a lot of people, but that is the nature of compromise. Consistent rules no matter which airport you find yourself in would be a good thing, even if that "usurps" some local powers. The fact is that airports are already largely under Federal jurisdiction