Guns in the airport: A lawyer’s perspective
July 2, 2008 at 9:23 am by Andisheh Nouraee in NewsThe pro-gun group GeorgiaCarry.org filed suit in federal court yesterday claiming the city of Atlanta cannot ban state firearms license holders from carrying weapons in the Hartsfield-Jackson terminal.
Last night I spoke to the group’s president, attorney Edward Stone, who revealed one of the group’s possible legal strategies against the city.
As you might (not) have read, yesterday Mayor Shirley Franklin and Hartsfield-Jackson General Manager Ben DeCosta said Atlanta is entitled to ban guns from the airport terminal, despite a new state law allowing firearms license holders to carry weapons while on public transportation.
Franklin and DeCosta say the new law does not apply to the airport because the airport is covered by state code 16-11-127 which restricts possession of weapons in public buildings and at public gatherings.
Stone points out that it has long been permissible for airline passengers to transport unloaded weapons through Hartsfield-Jackson in their checked luggage — with or without a state-issued firearms license.
By allowing firearms in checked luggage, Stone suggested, the city is contradicting its new claim that 16-11-127’s public gathering/public building clause applies to the airport.
There’s no exception in 16-11-127 for checked luggage. In English — if Hartsfield-Jackson’s terminals are a public building/public gathering, as the city now claims, then even unloaded guns in checked luggage are illegal. By long allowing unloaded guns in checked luggage, the city is in essence admitting that the public buildings/public gatherings exception does not apply to the airport.
It’ll no doubt be an interesting case to watch.
Send to a friend:
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Thank you, Andisheh, for focusing your reporting on the legal issues surrounding this case rather than the emotions surrounding the “guns” issue.
I continue to be amazed at the stark difference in the strategies and stances taken by individuals on the opposite sides of this controversy. Those who are “pro-gun” root their arguments and actions in the law and make tremendous efforts to obey the law. Conversely, those who are “anti-gun” seem intent on disregarding the law or misrepresenting the law to suit their own purposes.
I hope that, following an almost certain second defeat at the hands of GeorgiaCarry.Org’s attorneys, Mayor Franklin will realize that she is neither above the law, or empowered to create or change it to suit her own political agenda.
Yes, second defeat. Mayor Franklin used the same arguments regarding a “public gathering place” to support her illegal preemption of state law regarding carry of firearms in state parks. She lost in court using that argument, as she will again.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Andi, it was nice to speak with you at the airport yesterday (I was the guy with the beard and two orange buttons on).
I’m glad that “The Loaf” is covering this, and covering it well.
Everyone in Georgia needs to see what Mayor Franklin is up to. She clearly thinks she can ignore the laws she doesn’t like.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:26 am
Thanks Andisheh. I must say that I am surprised, albeit pleasantly, to see good unbiased reporting from anyone remotely connected to the AJC. Your focus on the law is refreshing. Please keep up the good work!
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 am
Thank you.
Though just to clarify, neither I nor Creative Loafing has a connection to the AJC.
Unless you count my subscription.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
Mayor Franklin says the city needs to raise taxes to stay afloat, yet she seems to have the funds to fight a second hopeless lawsuit just to make a point and impress her anti-gun mayor buddies, like Bloomberg. The last case over city parks had just gone to the Georgia Supreme Court with another locality, so Franklin had to know they’d lose. It seems obvious there is still a lot of fat in the city budget that can be trimmed before a tax increase is necessary.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
The 2nd Amendment makes no exceptions for elitists like Mayor Franklin. An elected official must obey the law, just the same as any citizen. Elitists think there are two sets of laws, one for the “Great Unwashed (regular citizens) and another for the “Special People” like herself. Shirley, leadership doesn’t equal dictatorship, except in your tiny little mind. By the way Shirley, how does your son-in-law like prision? Great example of your leadership, don’t you think?
July 7th, 2008 at 9:14 am
…but, but, but the Constitution is a living breathing document!!!
Only in the sense that people like Mayor Franklin try to strangle it to death.