Lawsuit Filed To Carry Weapons In Atlanta Airport

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by clevin, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #1
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/lawsuit-filed-to-carry-we_n_110270.html

    2nd amendment is too old for modern society, Scalia is too old for 21st century too.

    Is something is too old and out of date, remove it
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    Scalia and Heller are irrelevant to this deal.

    The suit is not about carry inside the airport's restricted areas, inside the ding-dong machines. Georgia law says you can carry outside those areas. The airport administrator is claiming that the federal law says no carry anywhere at all inside any part of the building, and I think (but am not sure) that he's including the driveways and parking lots.

    As near as folks can tell, the administrator is taking the position of, "I don't like that law, and I'll arrest anybody who carries in what I call a forbidden zone."

    And you--and the rest of us--are fortunate that we do have a Scalia for lawsuits such as Heller. It's nice when somebody at the federal level believes that even us peons have a right to live. Too many at the city and state level believe that only the rich and famous have such a right.

    'Rat
     
  3. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    ha, maybe you are happy with some stranger standing in front of security check in and play with a gun. I do NOT.

    Scalia's record is there, clearly written. Expect him to protect poor? get real, he claims himself as "strict interpreter of constitution", not "poor protector".

    Does constitution protect poor? show me.

    Portray Scalia as a person who cares about poor people....you are quite creative.

    PS, how many poor people can afford a gun?
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    You obviously don't know anything about the CHL process. To be legal while carrying a handgun, you gotta get fingerprinted and signed off by the Sheriff or Police Chief. Mug shots are common. They run a check on you through the NCIC computer as to a criminal record.

    IOW, you're as clean as any cop.

    And why in the world would you expect "...some stranger standing in front of security check in and play with a gun."? That makes no sense at all, and for sure it doesn't happen. That's a good way to spend lawyer money to stay out of either jail or the state home for the bewildered.

    As far as Scalia and the poor, he's holding that rich and poor are equal in the right to keep and bear arms. That is, in New York City and in many jurisdictions in California, poor or "just folks" people cannot get a license to carry a concealed handgun. However, it's not at all uncommon for the rich and famous to have licenses issued to them. It's ironic when someone like Barbara Feinstein speaks of disarming all people, yet has a CHL. Or when people like Rosie O'Donnell say that all gunowners should be in jail--yet has an armed bodyguard.

    Then again, maybe the rich and famous should have more rights than you do. Don't you agree?

    Sarcasm mode off.

    As to costs, there are inexpensive used handguns available. But, like everything else--bread, eggs, milk, gasoline--prices have risen...

    'Rat
     
  5. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #5
    All,

    Here is the updated story from the Journal-Constitution as it stands now
    Read it and decide yourselves what is going on...

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  6. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #6
    You watch the evening news at 6 I'm going to guess...
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #7
    Here in Ohio, carrying a concealed weapon is unfortunately legal, but places like government offices have the right to post themselves as no-gun zones. Watch that come to an end as someone inspired by this files a lawsuit here.

    And if and when that happens, I'll have to wonder if some of our customers, a few of dubious stability, will be carrying deadly weapons.
     
  8. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #8
    In Seattle (at least), off-duty law officers are required to carry firearms at all times. There are also certain professions, where there may be justifications for carrying a firearm. However, ordinary citizens, even with CWP, do not have a need to carry a firearm everywhere and at all times, just because they can. That strikes me as paranoid-delusional (and a good argument for not 'packing'). I used to carry a pistol at all times, with a permit. That included getting drunk and shooting pool in a beer bar. Knowing it was there, got me into some pretty tough, and dangerous situations, which I normally would have avoided. I eventually quit carrying and sold my guns. Now I do not even own one. We live in a very remote area, so I do have a Winchester riot gun in the house for self-protection. We would not get get any police protection for at least 30 minutes.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    "I used to carry a pistol at all times, with a permit. That included getting drunk and shooting pool in a beer bar. Knowing it was there, got me into some pretty tough, and dangerous situations, which I normally would have avoided."

    But that's just you. What you once did is irrelevant to others. On balance, I seriously doubt that's any sort of regular pattern for the vast majority of CHL folks.

    For the converse: In Texas, a large part of the required CHL licensing course--largest, in terms of hours--is how to deal with confrontations in a non-violent manner. In Texas, a CHL holder must meet a higher standard of behavior than others. The law is quite specific in a number of areas. If you mess up in displaying, threatening or by shooting a bystander, you're going to learn more about the Graybar Hotel than you ever wanted. The CHL lets you tote, but you darned well better keep personal responsibility in the forefront of your mind. Anybody who can't deal with that better leave guns at home. SFAIK, Florida's system is much the same.

    Note that the state law enforcement folks in both Texas and Florida have lauded the behavior of CHL folks. We're the least troublesome group with whom they deal.

    As far as "paranoia", that's a damfino thing, although I really don't believe it. Not with this sort of datum:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime

    'Rat
     
  10. iCheese macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    #10
    Good job calling people who carry guns paranoid and delusional, but then admitting that you used to carry yourself, and that you still have a shotgun for home defense.
     
  11. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #11
    they are arguing ppl can carry gun up to security check point.
    and that is how he protect poor? are you suggesting rich and poor have equal chance to hoot each other?

    Rich and poor equal itself is such a profoundly misleading statement, they are RICH and POOR, where is equal to start with? You can loudly give poor whatever right you know he/she will never get in reality. And guess what, thats NOT how you protect poor.

    I guess you support everybody pay same tax rate as well, RICH and POOR. Equal...
     
  12. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #12
    Yes, but people with concealed weapons permits just don't wave around their guns at security checkpoints in front of people. That's ridiculous. Have you even ever seen a person with a concealed permit carrying?!


    You don't protect the poor by infringing on the "rich's" rights. Besides, as has been covered, some poor people can afford weapons, you can get used ones for fairly cheap.

    You seem to have this classist mentality against rich people, and it seems pretty unfounded.


    America is based on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Your argument is like saying "But wait, are you saying that the rich and poor have the same chance to drive a Ferrari?" NO, of course not, but you don't infringe on one person's freedom just because someone else might not be able to immediately take advantage of that.

    WTF. Do you think all the rich people who can now bring concealed weapons onto an airport parking lot are going to unload their weapons into poor people? Things cost money, clevin, and some people can afford them, and some people can't. Guns are no different than cars are no different than a really nice steak.
     
  13. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #13
    well gee, maybe the first amendment is also....be glad you have the second amendment to protect your first amendment rights, and your right to post here. Also, there are plenty of countries you can move to that already have banned guns.
     
  14. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #14
    Hmm...

    How does this mesh with the Department of Homeland Security and TSA for the higher level threat advisories.

    And since they only want unloaded weapons in a locked and sealed container entering the airport ... wouldn't a concealed weapons permit go against this.
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    Sun Baked, this is not about carrying for transport in/on a plane. Nor about baggage check-in or going past the ding-dong machine.

    It has to do with driving through the area to drop off or pick up passengers, or at most to enter the passenger-greeting areas OUTSIDE any security zones.

    The Atlanta airport boss would have it that anywhere on the airport grounds is a forbidden zone, and that's ridiculous. Remember, we're talking about people who are as pure as any cop.

    'Rat
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Umm... I've known enough cops to know that this is not exactly a ringing endorsement...
     

Share This Page