Judge rules: No guns in airport

[fascisthunter]

People with firearms licenses still can't take guns into non-secure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob refused to grant a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the city from enforcing the airport gun ban. Shoob ruled against gun-rights group GeorgiaCarry.org and state Rep. Timothy Bearden (R-Villa Rica).

Bearden sponsored House Bill 89, which became law on July 1 and permits people with firearms licenses to carry guns in state parks, restaurants that serve alcohol and on mass transit.

http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/08/11/guns_at_airport.html

[tburnsten]

1. A question

"City officials say that 80 percent of the airport is "non-secure" — areas were people have not been screened at a security checkpoint."There can be no doubt that the public has an interest in safe air travel," Shoob said. "Here, the evidence demonstrates, at the very least, that there is a significant question as to whether permitting the carrying of guns in the airport is a serious threat to the public safety and welfare.""

How does this infer federal jurisdiction over a state airport?

[Historic NY]

2. The airport is under control of the TSA a Federal Agency....

amd if the airport is using or has used federal funds this give the US government a say. They say everything changed after 911.

[tburnsten]

3. I was under the impression the TSA

only controlled the secure portion of the airport, the areas where people have to go through a hard security barrier to enter. That is not the area the state law was going to approve carry in, they were talking about the parking lot, pickup area, waiting area, places where the TSA does not have any control.

[Historic NY]

4. looks like it moving to complete control

http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2008/0618.shtm

[tburnsten]

5. I didn't see where it said that

It does look like they are increasing security overall though, which I suppose is a good thing, hopefully they will do it in cost-effective ways, but it didn't look like they are planning on moving to a system where they screen everybody entering the airport. If they aren't having everyone go through metal detectors and all the other mandatory screening for the secure areas, then how can they reasonably claim to have full jurisdiction over the outer areas? How will they, in a time and cost efficient manner, search and screen every single vehicle and individual who enters airport property? I can't think of a way, it would shut down air travel as we know it.

[SteveM]

6. Security proposals seem to be aimed at "secure side"...

and not the rest of airports. I also have a problem with federal court jurisdiction at airports. But 'twas only an injunction.

[high_and_mighty]

7. Nothing final in the decision

Just didn't lift the ban while he is going over the case. That is pretty standard right?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Yes.