Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gun Lobby Fights Handgun Ban At ATL  
User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

I had previously posted this under the thread PETA Makes Proposal To DFW Airport , but at the forum moderator's suggestion, I've created a separate thread for it here.

My point is that, kooky as they undoubtedly can be, the PETA nuts are decidedly less dangerous than the NRA and other assorted gun-nuts that want to eliminate the perfectly reasonable restrictions agains carrying handguns at ATL.. While they are not asking to take guns past security, they are asking to carry handguns in other areas of the airport, which is currently a violation of the Hartsfield Airport Regulations.

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

The airlines permit passengers to check firearms onto aircraft. Since they're not allowed past security anyway, I don't see why the ban is necessary. If I buy a firearm in Georgia, I need to be able to transport it back home to Texas; should I not just be able to follow the airlines' and TSA's procedures for transporting the firearm safely? And with hundreds of air carrier airports in this country, how am I supposed to keep track of which airports allow firearms in the unsecure areas and which airports don't?

Besides, when are the gun control nuts going to figure out that the people who pay attention to the law to begin with aren't a threat to you. The 'bad guys' are bringing their guns to ATL (and wherever else they want to), and unless you post the X-ray machines at the airport entrance, you're never going to catch them.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25069 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

And hopefully the local Hatsfield regulations will be overturned, as the intended Georgia statue allowing carriage of fire arms very clearly makes mentions "Mass Transit" as public location where firearms are permitted.

I fully support gun rights in the public including non-restricted areas of airports, and fully support Georgia and its citizen rights to bear such arms as the law intends.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2246 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2143 times:



Quoting Jhooper (Reply 1):
Besides, when are the gun control nuts going to figure out that the people who pay attention to the law to begin with aren't a threat to you. The 'bad guys' are bringing their guns to ATL (and wherever else they want to), and unless you post the X-ray machines at the airport entrance, you're never going to catch them.

DING! I love common sense.

It's too late for "gun control" as it is most often defined.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

That would mean that even if you have a valid CCW permit, if you're going to pick up or drop off anyone at ATL, you're unprotected from the time you leave your house until you get back.

User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2134 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
as the law intends.

only according to those on the right aisle of the political side.


User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2116 times:



Quoting Johns624 (Reply 4):
you're unprotected from the time you leave your house until you get back.

You are not serious, are you?
You feel unprotected while not carrying your personal firearm?

11.000 weapon murders a year do speak for themselves, no?


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2101 times:



Quoting Johns624 (Reply 4):
That would mean that even if you have a valid CCW permit, if you're going to pick up or drop off anyone at ATL, you're unprotected from the time you leave your house until you get back.

No! That's an incorrect interpretaion of the regulations. You can have your gun in your vehicle. You just cannot carry it with you on your person into a public area of the airport.

Moreover I'm sorry, but I completely fail to understand this paranoia about "protection with firearms" while driving to and from the airport!! You have a better chance of being mowed down by an errant 18-wheeler than being car-jacked by some thug.

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 1):
The airlines permit passengers to check firearms onto aircraft. Since they're not allowed past security anyway, I don't see why the ban is necessary.

I'll go with the numerous studies worldwide that have demonstrated that the possession of weapons in a public place by people not involved in a security function has the potential to do more harm than good. This includes well-intentioned, well-trained and law-abiding vigilantes as well. The public areas of the airport outside of the secure areas ought to be off-limits to unauthorised weapons too. A concealed handgun permit is not an autorisation to carry it in a place where the management have deemed it a security hazard. You may differ with their analysis, but I and many others would prefer to trust their judgement over that of the gun lobby.

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 1):
I need to be able to transport it back home to Texas;

Pack it in your suitcase unloaded. No questions, no worries. Plus isnt transporting a gun to Texas a bit like carrying coals to Newcastle?! Big grin


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2093 times:



Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 7):
Pack it in your suitcase unloaded. No questions, no worries.

That's what I'm worried about. If weapons are banned from the check-in area, then do I not subject myself to arrest by merely having my unloaded weapon in my suitcase? Maybe I misunderstand the regulation.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2086 times:



Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 7):
Moreover I'm sorry, but I completely fail to understand this paranoia about "protection with firearms" while driving to and from the airport!!

 checkmark 

A voice of reason. Thank you for that.


User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 777 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

You Europeans will never understand...

User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2075 times:



Quoting Jhooper (Reply 8):
That's what I'm worried about. If weapons are banned from the check-in area, then do I not subject myself to arrest by merely having my unloaded weapon in my suitcase?

No. The statute only applies to concealed handguns carried on one's person. Unloaded packed weapons are not a problem.


User currently offlineSCXmechanic From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2069 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 6):
11.000 weapon murders a year do speak for themselves, no?

Well there would be less deaths if more people carried a gun to defend themselves. Who would want to rob or otherwise try to harm someone if they thought they were armed?

An unarned person is a victim waiting to happen into their own crime scene. I know myself, I don't leave home without a handgun on my person.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

I always understood that the US Constitution referred to "a well regulated militia" not anyone who feels like it.

Surely the more guns are out there, the more will go off by accident, and the more that can be stolen or misused.

Is the US really that dangerous that everyone needs a gun.


User currently offlineSCXmechanic From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 04-278
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[June 27, 2005]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.

The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck.

[Edited 2008-08-19 15:46:31]

User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2037 times:



Quoting SCXmechanic (Reply 12):
Well there would be less deaths if more people carried a gun to defend themselves. Who would want to rob or otherwise try to harm someone if they thought they were armed?

The perpetrator always has the element of surprise, unless one is so paranoid that he/she assumes a sniper-like perch at all times in public. So with all your handgun training, if a murderous thug wanted to rob you, I'd sadly have to say that the odds are in his favour. But hey! Its your choice - if you feel that you can defend yourself - Go ahead! Pack heat! Unless you're packing heat where its against the law, in which case, sorry, but you're going to jail! Big grin


User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 10):
You Europeans will never understand...

Correct, we won't. We don't like getting shot.

Quoting SCXmechanic (Reply 12):
Well there would be less deaths if more people carried a gun to defend themselves. Who would want to rob or otherwise try to harm someone if they thought they were armed?

An unarned person is a victim waiting to happen into their own crime scene. I know myself, I don't leave home without a handgun on my person.

Exactly HOW paranoid can one get?
The statistics prove you wrong.

USA: 11.000 weapon murders on 300 Mio inhabitants = 37 for every million residents.
Germany: 350 for 85 Mio. = 4 for every mio. residents.

Yes, I see. Weapons DO make it safer.

[Edited 2008-08-19 15:49:35]

User currently offlineSCXmechanic From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 534 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2020 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 16):
Yes, I see. Weapons DO make it safer

If you could get all the guns from criminals then I wouldn't feel the need to feel so strongly about personal protection as I do. Since the criminals aren't going to hand over theirs then I damn sure aren't gonna be disarmed.

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 15):
Go ahead! Pack heat! Unless you're packing heat where its against the law, in which case, sorry, but you're going to jail!

I DO "pack heat" as you say where and when its legal for me to do so. You won't find me carrying in a Federal Building, bars or other places where they are banned. But can't say the same about guys who carry illegally looking to do harm.


User currently offlineBoeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2015 times:



Quoting SCXmechanic (Reply 14):
and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.

So what would you have them do when he is in compliance ?!?! We're supposed to believe that if Ms Gonzalez had a firearm and was trained to use it, this murderous punk would have avoided all contact with her and their children?! Sorry, but that's ludicruously naive!


User currently offlineRwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2015 times:



Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 7):
Plus isnt transporting a gun to Texas a bit like carrying coals to Newcastle?!

Classic!

Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 10):
You Europeans will never understand...

Nor will a lot Americans.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 13):
I always understood that the US Constitution referred to "a well regulated militia" not anyone who feels like it.

But they use that vague reference to support their gun obsession. That Article of the Constitution was meant to facilitate a defensive organization against a common enemy in the absence of a standing army. With the US Army well armed and controlled, that Article is pointless in today's society. Back in the 1790's it was necessary, today it isn't.

Cue the right-wing attack fest.  sarcastic   duck 



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2012 times:



Quoting SCXmechanic (Reply 17):
If you could get all the guns from criminals then I wouldn't feel the need to feel so strongly about personal protection as I do. Since the criminals aren't going to hand over theirs then I damn sure aren't gonna be disarmed.

Don't you feel, that the relative simple way of getting a firearm in the US for everybody at the age of 16 (please correct me on that) is making people more prone to use it in a certain "anger" situation whereas somebody in e.g. Germany with no access to firearms would maybe just start a major beat up?
Lots of people are literally pushed into becoming a "criminal by law" due to the ability to possess and use firearms easily.

If you carry a weapon, you gonna use it. If you don't you can just use your fists.
Think about it...


User currently offlinePilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Although I am a Republican, I disagree with this gun crap. We, USA as a whole, are not very intelligent. I personally believe that handguns should be outlawed, because of the lack of common sense and the overall evil that criminals do. I say lack of common sense, because I had a friend in high school that was killed because another friend was screwing around with a handgun and it went off in the guy's face. People are not smart enough to be armed.The evil is grown men shooting at each other for dumb ass reasons and end up killing an innocent child. If it should happen that we as civilians need to be an armed militia, then use the hunting rifles, etc. etc. This isn't the 1700 or 1800's were it would be possible ( if needed) to over throw the government. This is just a guess, but I think the US armed forces and police forces around the country are a little better armed than a friggin hand gun.


Booooo Lois, Yaaaa Beer!!!
User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1974 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 20):
everybody at the age of 16

It's 18 for rifles and shotguns and 21 for handguns. Every purchaser undergoes a Federal background check.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 20):
If you carry a weapon, you gonna use it.

Guns don't make people evil or criminal.

Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 7):
law-abiding vigilantes

Oxymoron--as opposed to a regular moron!

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 19):
That Article of the Constitution was meant to facilitate a defensive organization against a common enemy in the absence of a standing army.

That's not what the SCOTUS ruled in Heller vs. DC. None of the first 10 Amendments are rights that the government is giving you. They merely reiterate God-given rights that the government says that they won't interfere with.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25069 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1974 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 13):
I always understood that the US Constitution referred to "a well regulated militia" not anyone who feels like it.

Yes it does -- and its definition and intent was an important element just this summer in the Supreme Court decision regarding District of Columbia's law that restricted hand gun ownership within the district.

The court again (every few decades such cases come up) affirmed citizen basic Second Amendment right to bear arms and interpreted the 'milita' to mean the according to the courts majority decision.

the "militia" reference in the first part of the amendment simply "announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia." The Constitution's framers were afraid that the new federal government would disarm the populace, as the British had tried to do. This "prefatory statement of purpose" should not be interpreted to limit the meaning of what is called the operative clause --- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Instead, the operative clause "codified a pre-existing right" of individual gun ownership for private use.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Is it just me or has this thread devolved into a non-aviation related topic?

Moderators: Please either delete or move to "Non-Aviation".

This topic is supposed to be about guns at the Atlanta airport.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
25 Bennett123 : So if the framers of the Constitution meant "anyone can own a gun or guns for private use, why refer to a Militia". Surely, they also referred to this
26 NicoEDDF : So you can carry a shotgun with 18? Yes, I think that is reasonable... I know, the typical argument. But as you see in unbiased statistics, they cert
27 SCXmechanic : If it was private ground then they have every right to forbid guns or anything else they feel deem harmful. But since they use public funds to run and
28 Cubsrule : So Justice Scalia's reading of history is automatically the correct one? Who said that?
29 NicoEDDF : Do they exclusively use public funds?
30 LAXintl : Well Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion and at the end of the day, what the highest court in the nation says goes. Anyhow - this is not the fi
31 Cubsrule : What if it's objectively wrong? I'm not saying it is, but I can at least imagine a situation in which a justice selectively quotes history in order t
32 Kent350787 : Is it worth continuing to fight the gun control fight in the US? If, as a nation, you guys are prepared to accept a gun homicide rate massively higher
33 PPVRA : I'm all for gun rights, but the NRA has lawyers not brains.
34 Sv7887 : Considering the US Supreme Court agrees with the spirit of giving people the right to bear arms I'd say yes. Then I'd imagine you'd object to allowin
35 L-188 : I dunno, with the way the democrats run this country it may become needed. I bet you right now in Europe there are a hell of a lot of Georgians that
36 FlyDeltaJets87 : Hmmm....they do this in Istanbul, Turkey. You have to go through security just to get into the airport. Maybe the Turks are onto something. If I find
37 Kent350787 : If you're happy with banning guns from some places (such as landside at airports, schools etc.), why aren't you happy to ban them from all places? Ken
38 JetMech : I'd have to say that I am another one of the many that did not "understand". However, I have slowly become more sympathetic to the self defence side
39 Johns624 : I wasn't talking about criminals. The person I was quoting made it sound like he thought that having a gun would turn a person evil. As far as carryi
40 Baroque : Apparently not in a language we all understand Nico. Seems so, and increasing the ability to shoot is apparently the only way to lower the homicide r
41 Sv7887 : I think it's not that we "want" a gun culture per se, it's just how to deal with the massive flow of illegal guns in the country. That's the problem.
42 Baroque : Start with rationing the ammunition. We had a .45 revolver in the house (but never any ammunition) until WWII started, when it went to a cousin who w
43 JetMech : Could the presence of firearms - actual or perceived - be the actual factor itself that turns a beat up into a life and death situation? I understand
44 Johns624 : Because it is. It's just a tool. You carry it because you might need it, but you don't know when. I saw a good saying awhile ago. To paraphrase-If I
45 JetMech : That's fair enough Johns. As I mentioned earlier, I am actually becoming quite sympathetic to the self defence side of the argument, but the question
46 Johns624 : Becuase of its size and destructive potential, I'd equate a handgun more with a large hunting knife instead of the objects you mentioned. A large knif
47 JetMech : Fair enough. But are there not legally available firearms that have destructive potential equal to a claymore? I understand equating a handgun to a l
48 Baroque : But surely a ring of mines, clearly marked just inside your boundary would be purely defensive, so they must meet most of the criteria being offered
49 Acheron : How about those who will start and argument or pick a fight for petty reasons because, precisely, they know they have the advantage of possessing a g
50 Johns624 : WRONG! Not those who are carrying legally. Do a Google search for yourself. The media loves to publicize these cases but it's only happened a few tim
51 DL021 : The worst thing here is that a private individual, at the behest of a local politician, is attempting to deprive Georgia citizens, US citizens of thei
52 Stratosphere : Depends? On where you live...I live in Memphis Tennessee. It has one of the highest crime rates in the nation. Now I live just over the border in Mis
53 FlyDeltaJets87 : A) Who knows if the other person has a gun too? B) Who's to say I was even planning to carry a gun in this situation? I said "weapon", which could in
54 JetMech : The way many in the US put their right for self defense above all else, it really wouldn't surprise me if this becomes the new "guns don't kill peopl
55 Baroque : Yes well that bizarre episode was lurking at the back of my mind while writing that. The court case was perhaps more bizarre than the theft itself. T
56 FlyDeltaJets87 : I think both of us should accept that for our arguments, we're going to "create" scenarios that benefit our argument. I'm smart enough to know a gun
57 JetMech : I'm sorry to hear of your experience Stratosphere. I wonder if this crime would have taken place if there were no firearms present. If I believe some
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Any A.netters At ATL 1st&2nd May 2007? posted Tue Mar 27 2007 09:30:53 by Yirina77
Trip Report-Delta Heritage Museum At ATL posted Fri Mar 2 2007 22:35:49 by DeltaGator
Question About Translation Assistance At ATL posted Mon Sep 25 2006 04:47:27 by 767Lover
Hotels At ATL Airport? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 22:42:59 by SK973
US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case posted Tue Nov 20 2007 12:45:12 by D L X
VA Governor To Look At Gun Laws posted Wed Apr 25 2007 17:02:03 by KaiGywer
Shooting At The CNN Center In ATL posted Tue Apr 3 2007 20:07:04 by JetBlueGuy2006
DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional posted Fri Mar 9 2007 21:37:54 by Pope
Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) And Q's 'bout Gun posted Wed Nov 22 2006 23:13:38 by Foppishbum
Last Second Mini-Meet In ATL At PDK:1800 Tonight! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 21:35:05 by DL021