Atlanta Airport & Open Carry of an AR15

[dakota.potts]

I don't make any disagreements that the AR is a military type firearm. The second amendment wouldn't be structured to protect them if they weren't meant to be effective at some type of self-defense or warfare. Only the guns you use for sporting matches (maybe 3 gun or High Power) are sporting rifles, and it's not a mutually exclusive term.

What I'm trying to get at is what is seen as the offense by members here. Is it the open carry of a long arm at all? Is it that it's in a public place or that it's in a huge international airport? Would there be any difference in me taking a wood-stocked M1 Carbine or Marlin 30-30 if I had to go out somewhere late at night where I felt I needed one and didn't have a state-issued permit for whatever reason, or do the members feel long arms shouldn't be carried at all in public?

Obviously I agree that the man in the link is a word that would be censored if I tried to write it here, and he pulled a reckless publicity stunt without a modicum of thought towards the actual effects it would have. He even had it slung in front of him almost at low ready.

The question I guess I'm getting at is whether the majority of people against this are against all open carry of long arms in public places, or only in certain circumstances, where that line is, and whether they feel it should be made illegal or just frowned upon.

[zincwarrior]

You can also in my state stroll around the elementary school bus letting off kids in just a flesh colored Speedo. In that situation, many folks will call the cops, be preparing to give you an educational beat down or just shoot you. If you were also carrying your Mini-14 - wait till the smoke clears

For the record anyone walking around with a speedo and an M-14 is 1) crazy; or 2) has probably partied harder than the rest of this board combined.

The question I guess I'm getting at is whether the majority of people against this are against all open carry of long arms in public places, or only in certain circumstances, where that line is, and whether they feel it should be made illegal or just frowned upon.
__________________

For me:
1. OC of any long guns in certain places.
2. For #1, OC of long guns should be kept to traditional areas permitted historically: rural areas; parks and wilderness areas; private property; your vehicle; to and from; and inherently criminal areas (used car lots and the capital building ).
3. #1 and #2 should generally be legal, just not done (aka its legal but lets pretend you have manners and don't do it). Legally I would exclude them in similar fashion to a CHL in Texas: certain government buildings, sporting events, etc. I would prohibit them in mass transit areas and yes movie theaters.

[zukiphile]

The question I guess I'm getting at is whether the majority of people against this are against all open carry of long arms in public places, or only in certain circumstances, where that line is, and whether they feel it should be made illegal or just frowned upon.

I would frown on the practice of carrying a drum of 5.56 just because its so expensive that someone might punch me in the nose and take all 90 rounds from me.

That's real money.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What I'm trying to get at is what is seen as the offense by members here. Is it the open carry of a long arm at all? Is it that it's in a public place or that it's in a huge international airport? Would there be any difference in me taking a wood-stocked M1 Carbine or Marlin 30-30 if I had to go out somewhere late at night where I felt I needed one and didn't have a state-issued permit for whatever reason, or do the members feel long arms shouldn't be carried at all in public?

What part of common sense doesn't get through to people?

Long arms in locations that are specific attractors to rampage shooters and terrorists are not going to generate good feelings.

As John Farnam says (paraphrase) - don't go out to do stupid things with stupid people at stupid places.

If feel that specifically you need a gun to go to place that is dangerous, don't go there. That is different from general carry.

You don't go rescue someone. Now, if it is in a rural area and you are going out at night to check the pump, sure take the gun. I have.

But describe to us that you need to? Need to get some late night diapers at 7/11 - been there - if I stroll in with a long arm - should the clerk think you are a RKBA hero?

Long arm carry is more about posturing then utility in most urban circumstances. Should it be legal - sure - legal and stupid are not mutually exclusive.

[Tinbucket]

Several post referenced the AR not being a sporting firearm but a weapon or ugly gun, if you will.
Weapons is what the Second Amendment is about not slingshots for squirrels.
The muzzle loaders were weapons/ the Ar15 is a sporting firearm. Many many are used for hunting now especially hog hunters, out west.
The guy was looking for notoriety, imo, and didn't help the situation with anti Firearms anti Americans bunch.
However he does not need to be excoriated for exercising his Rights.
The "Left" needs to be pummeled for trying to turn him into a devil and for stepping on us every day.
We need to be attacking the anti Constitution bunch every day in the media on small thing and large items.
If the media won't accept th letters etc then facebook, twitter, and forums galore including all the Liberals' forums.
Put them on the defensive.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

However he does not need to be excoriated for exercising his Rights.

Well, then he should be educated in how his actions may be detrimental to the image of gun owners and puts rights at risk of new restrictive legislation.

Next, we don't do the liberal vs. conservative issue.

The AR is a gun that is bought primarily not for sport today but HD. Yes, it is used for hunting and competition also. The modern sporting rifle mantra was an attempt to convince antis that it was nice.

That's baloney. For example, many SWAT teams have semi guns - as weapons.

If they were a sporting gun then let's ban the 30 round mags. You don't need them to hunt deer - How many times have I heard that?

We can own them as they are weapons to defend against tyranny and protect yourself and loved ones.

However, their inherent powerful lethality engenders negative attitudes and to avoid losing rights (yes, they are inherent) but legislation gets you arrested, common sense is needed in presentation to the common folk.

A video of an AR with a drum mag strolling through the airport - that has more impact than going on an anti web site and saying blah, blah.

[SHR970]

leadcouncil wrote: Let's just change the scenario and say that a guy shows up with an AR or AK open carry at the airport, and opens fire. Then what? Do you think politicians will ignore that?

Not all that long ago (2013) we had someone come into LAX and open up on law enforcement and TSA in Terminal 3. Wiki link When you come up the road to arrivals, you are greeted by LAPD standing in the road at their checkpoint with full auto M16's...I know because I have seen it time and time again (joys of company travel). Do you know what the end result was????? Sure as heck not the doom and gloom so many here are predicting. AND THIS IS LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA!!!!! Paul Ciancia had a S&W M&P15 that he used to commit murder with.

LAPD has had armed checkpoints in the middle of the Century Blvd. ramp for aound ten years.

It is not the guy walking with a gun out in the open slung across his back that I am worried about. It is guys like this!

[leadcounsel]

4th Point said: How, pray tell, is the publicly accessed area of an airport any different than the publicly accessible area of a sporting arena, bus port, marina, or shopping mall?

What makes it intrinsically different? Are people at sporting events or shopping malls less important or are people at airports more? And, "'Cause it's a gol-durned Airport, ya nut" or variations thereof aren't acceptable, we're trying to have an adult conversation and it deserves adult answers.

The difference? Pretty clear. Airports are among the most sensitive and controlled checkpoints in America. They are repeatedly the target of attack and take over worldwide, routinely, since the 1970s. Does 9/11 ring a bell? Hundreds or thousands of people's lives can be taken by downing an airplane or several. Millions of dollars are spent every day protecting airports - even in small security breaches, hundreds of flights are canceled effecting perhaps millions of travelers and costing tens of millions of dollars. All far from an inconvenience.

Take one step into the secured area and that's committing a very significant crime or crimes. But let's consider this - in many airports it's only a few steps from security to the gate and the airplane, and some athletic and trained individuals could theoretically cover that distance before any armed response. So, in theory, open carrying individuals could overtake security, rush the airplane and board any plane within a few minutes. That's a hijack hostage situation that won't end well.

Conversely, malls, bus stops, and the like are much more controlled environments and much easier for law enforcement to handle. The analogy is a poor one.

A better analogy would be to try to walk right up to a Courthouse security checkpoint, a legislative checkpoint or a military base checkpoint with a loaded AR15. See the response. You're liable to get shot by a trigger happy guard or two. This is a better analogy. These are threats to national security or judicial security.

Anyone who can't see the difference is willfully ignorant or something more. And these stunts do us no good.

[SHR970]

Glenn E Meyer wrote: 1. Wait till you become old enough. That's true for a lot of things.

Last time I checked 18 years old is old enough to legally purchase and posess a rifle or shotgun. So you would deny a person three years of ability to protect themselves and their community because you disagree with open carry of long guns? That is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

10 USC Sec. 311 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If an 18 year old is not allowed a handgun, then by all means they should carry a rifle or shotgun. They have the right to vote as well as die for their country. That means they have the right to fully protect themselves and deal with the consequences of doing so.

[SHR970]

leadcouncil wrote: Imagine if 1 person showed up on your sidewalk with a loaded AK, within his rights. Stood there eyeing your house. You have to leave to go to work, and your family will be alone all day. Now say 10 people show up, standing on your sidewalk, loaded ARs and AKs, eyeballing your house. Does that raise any level of apprehension in you?

Maybe they're not doing anything illegal. Just gathering peacefully on public property. They may be within their rights, but 99.9% of people would feel apprehension and call the cops. It's the context, and the feeling of apprehension and hostile intent they communicate.

And the cops have the right and obligation to come out and check the situation. If the 10 guys are not breaking the law and pass the smell test, they get to walk away. Same thing happened here; the subject of our discussion was interviewed and allowed to go on his merry way.

[SHR970]

leadcouncil wrote: The difference? Pretty clear. Airports are among the most sensitive and controlled checkpoints in America.

In a word...No. The big ones may be but the smaller ones not even close. I went through more security cheeck points visiting national monuments then I did going through Long Beach or John Wayne. And that is just the controlled aspect.

Military base checkpoints???? Get through the two guys at the gate and it is a free for all until they can get weapons issued out. Sorry not buying it.....recent lock down at Angeles AFB... required local law enforcement help for something that tunrned out to be nothing...and they were wrapped around the axle for over four hours. Ever been to Aberdeen Proving Ground? How about UTTR or Dugway? I've been to them and more over the last few years. I know what a check point looks like.

[bandaid1]

Zinkwarrior: "Are you arguing that it is normal for a person to walk into an airport with a long gun? Please cite evidence to support your argument that it is normal to do so."

http://www.transcom.mil/dtr/part-iii...iii_app_bb.pdf see page 4.

Zinc "You list multiple tools. Please cite where it is normal to carry those into an airport as well. I've never seen someone walk into an airport with a machete, much less a nice claymore."

See page 4, I think they go in the baggage compartment.

Glen: "The AR is a gun that is bought primarily not for sport today but HD. Yes, it is used for hunting and competition also. The modern sporting rifle mantra was an attempt to convince antis that it was nice.

That's baloney. For example, many SWAT teams have semi guns - as weapons."

Really? Mine must be defective. Then again mine doesn't shoot 5.56.

"If they were a sporting gun then let's ban the 30 round mags. You don't need them to hunt deer - How many times have I heard that?"

Have you ever herd of anyone that has ever been in a gun fight say " Boy I wish I had less ammo"?

The only fault I find with what this OC guy did was the Beta Mag. They are a piece of junk. Not reliable at all.

[Tom Servo]

What do you consider "normal behavior" and what do you base this opinion on that it was not normal?

Normal behavior is behavior that is routine and accepted by a wide segment of society. Cooley's stunt met neither of those criteria.

What "MILITARY RIFLE" was he carrying (I thought it was an AR15)? If a AR15 is a Military Weapon than all Bolt Action rifles are sniper rifles

We can get into all the reductionism we want. This isn't about weapon classification or technology. The plain fact is, behavior like that spooks the normals and does nothing to help us. Nothing.

Yes, he did have an option and he choose the one that didn't require him to request permission or paying a fee to exercise his right. Why is that a bad thing?

Do I think requiring a permit is unconstitutional? Yes. Has a single court agreed with that? No. Right or wrong, that's where we are.

Appearance? Really?

Yes. And that's something responsible adults take into consideration. If Cooley and his supporters are blind to that, then I have real questions about their ability to function in society in general.

"Rights" are not "Rights" because you are allowed to exercise them in secret (concealed), they are Rights because you can exercise them in public, openly without getting prior permission.

OK, so I'll run around the airport screaming "hi, jack!" Let's see how well my 1st Amendment defense goes on that.

This mentality is one of the reasons I really can't get behind open carry as a political statement. There's an affected naivete to social norms and a lack of consideration for bystanders that poisons the whole argument.

[KyJim]

Leadcounsel wrote: The difference? Pretty clear. Airports are among the most sensitive and controlled checkpoints in America.

And, lest any of us forget, Heller and McDonald specifically said the right to bear arms can be abridged in "sensitive places." While schools and courtrooms immediately come to mind, it's quite likely a ban on carry in airports would be upheld. That would likely include concealed carry as well as open carry.

The guy's an idiot. No, not an opinion. It's a fact. "Idiot: 1. Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person . . . " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot. That pretty well sums it up.

[bandaid1]

"OK, so I'll run around the airport screaming "hi, jack!" Let's see how well my 1st Amendment defense goes on that."

Different issue. Same issue as the yelling "fire" in a theater one, and as you already know. It's a poor argument, because its not illegal to yell "hi jack" or "fire" if it is really happening. Doing so with malicious intent is a different issue. But you already know this distinction.

"Yes. And that's something responsible adults take into consideration. If Cooley and his supporters are blind to that, then I have real questions about their ability to function in society in general."

Appearances can be deceiving. Some of the most normal looking people can be found at a lock down Psych Ward.

"Normal behavior is behavior that is routine and accepted by a wide segment of society. Cooley's stunt met neither of those criteria."

LOL, Normalcy changes all the time. Its changing as you read this. Your criteria doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "Normal" or "Routine" when it comes to the human condition. At my last count, there were over 265 different Behavioral disorders NOS(not otherwise specified), Conduct disorders NOS, Disruptive behavior disorders NOS, Abnormal behavior, Behavior disorder, Behavior disorder as late effect of cerebral infarction, Behavioral disorders, late effect of stroke, Conduct disorders, and behavioral/cognitive disorders. No one is Normal. Everyone is different.

[kilimanjaro]

So let's just define deviancy down a little further, right? Cooley is not, repeat, not 'normal'. [. . .] Mental illness takes many forms, and Cooley is on the margin.

Society can change the definition of normal all it wants, it doesn't make his behavior objectively rational. Strike the law against murder off the books, that doesn't make killers innocent.

Cooley is, in a word, a fool. He needs a psych evaluation. Don't hang your Second Amendment rights on him, or people like him, they are going to cause you grief, and they won't even admit to being responsible for it, that's how big of a group of fools they are, self-righteous fools, the worst kind.

[sicumj]

I fail to see how carrying any long gun openly into a crowded area is protected by an amendment right. I disagree that 1 or 10 people armed eyeballing my residence is protected by the second amendment. How the Atlanta cops let that guy walk is beyond me. What if he opened up on someone after he was cleared by the cops? Does anyone here believe we would have found the police NOT negligent in that decision? Behavior like that is not protected by any amendment right. Menacing comes to mind for both examples above. First amendment examples have been made to try to explain to a few on this sight that amendment rights are not undeniable. An individual right cannot be guaranteed when it infringes upon the masses. You may think that there is no crime for stupid but there is. Atlanta police should be ashamed of theirselves. That guy should have went to jail.

[Tom Servo]

How the Atlanta cops let that guy walk is beyond me.

As others have pointed out, carry is legal in the airport. At question is the wisdom of doing so with a rifle.

I imagine the police had a close eye on him, but there was nothing criminal in his actions.

[kilimanjaro]

For now, there's nothing criminal, it is legal, for now. I'll bet that changes in not too much time.

[bandaid1]

Kilimajro: "Society can change the definition of normal all it wants, it doesn't make his behavior objectively rational. Strike the law against murder off the books, that doesn't make killers innocent."

Many people fall into your classification of "behavior objectively rational" . Thrill seekers, power junkies, control freaks, gear queens, the list goes on and on. Is it objectively rational to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, or swim with sharks or a hundred other activities that are perfectly legal. Who knows, maybe he is dying from an incurable cancer and carrying a rifle in an airport was on his bucket list. Kind of ironic if it was.

"Cooley is, in a word, a fool. He needs a psych evaluation. Don't hang your Second Amendment rights on him, or people like him, they are going to cause you grief, and they won't even admit to being responsible for it, that's how big of a group of fools they are, self-righteous fools, the worst kind. "

Interesting assessment. There are many famous people that took risks and had the courage to do things that others would not. They where called fools as well, such as Galileo, Moses, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, Gandhi, Lincoln and Jesus were all thought to be fools by their contemporaries. Time gives us perspective, beware of shortsightedness. Some people are just ahead of their times.

[4thPoint]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

You’re not a cop. If you want to be a police officer, join the force.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...pswa5t1rqq.jpg

Wherein we learn that some people think it's fine if people with shiny bits of metal on their chests carry automatic weapons in the Airport but a semi-automatic sporting rifle is cause for widespread panic.

I'm not a firefighter either, that doesn't mean I can't have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, one in my car and an industrial sized one in my garage. What else ya got?

[leadcounsel]

We can agree that 100% of people posting on this forum are pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment.

However, the majority on this thread, including me, think that:
1. This was a really dumb stunt.
2. This type of behavior, while currently legal, will likely become illegal and further encroach our right.

With great rights come great responsibilities. Exercise them irresponsibly and you shall soon lose them. This is a prime example of that.

I refer back to the yelling "fire" analogy, or "hi, jack," analogy. Both are appropriate here. They are legal and illegal depending on their context.

Yell "hi, jack," to a guy named Jack on the public street in downtown Cleveland, nobody cares. Change the context, put yourself in ANY location of an airport or on an airplane, and you'll be at least detained and there's a good chance you'll face federal charges. Same thing with yelling fire, there is a time and a place where it is clearly illegal.

Rights to carry are hard-fought and won, very narrowly. Idiots like this can get them taken away by very negative actions like this. It is quite telling that most pro-gun people on this forum are against this behavior. I've seen this discussion on a number of gun boards over the years when people open carry military guns at rallys and pull stunts like this at the airport. It is very unpopular among pro-gun crowd, due to the terrible public press. For the sake of pure argument, let's say that 2 in 10 (20%) of pro gun people are supportive. You can bet zero of the fence sitters (the crowd we really need) are supportive, and it gives the antis a lot of ammunition against us "loons."

Wherein we learn that some people think it's fine if people with shiny bits of metal on their chests carry automatic weapons in the Airport but a semi-automatic sporting rifle is cause for widespread panic.

I'm not a firefighter either, that doesn't mean I can't have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, one in my car and an industrial sized one in my garage. What else ya got?

You're preaching to the choir, but you're not making any sense. We are all on the same pro-gun team, and most of us would make these arguments for normal gun ownership behavior. Except it's not normal to be open carrying any loaded rifles in such a manner in a somewhat controlled environment.

You cannot deny it's a controlled environment. You are under strict watchful eye the moment you get onto airport property from cameras, police, TSA, and sometimes military. Suspect cars can and do get searched or towed, you can't park in certain drop off/pick up points, and yada yada yada.

This isn't a unique or period difference in the difference of normal versus abnormal behavior. In peacetime, it would have never been normal to act this way - carrying a loaded military style weapon into a psuedo-secured entry point. Not in the 1800s, not in the 1900s, and not in the 2000s. It can rightly be viewed as a step toward hostilities.

I doubt you can intellectually honestly say that if you were to take your kid to school, and there was a man hovering around the school, let's say just beyond the "gun free" area, watching the kids with a pair of binoculars (totally legal) with an AR15 or a scoped hunting rifle slung on his back (assume that is legal where you live) - that you wouldn't feel apprehensive and alert authorities? Again, context. I would assume this guy is up to deviant plans.

I could come up with a million examples of normal behavior but abnormal or dangerous appearing in context.

I'll add that this is also viewed in military terms as "probing for weaknesses." By design, targets are probed for weaknesses, response to actions, etc. Carrying an open AR15 into such an area to view the response might be one of a million examples of this activity. And one more reason courts would immediately make it illegal.

And this again sets us back. Not a single Federal judge is going to say that it's okay to carry an AR15 loaded and in the open into an airport check in area. Not one.

[4thPoint]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

However, the majority on this thread, including me, think that:
1. This was a really dumb stunt.
2. This type of behavior, while currently legal, will likely become illegal and further encroach our right.

With all due respect, at one time the majority of people thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that did not make the minority opinion wrong.
The gentleman's behavior would have been illegal a few years ago and only recently made explicitly legal with the passage of HB 60 in 2014. It's unlikely to be made illegal again as there is no support for it. Even the Georgia Governor did not have anything negative to say on the subject when he was interviewed.

With great rights come great responsibilities. Exercise them irresponsibly and you shall soon lose them. This is a prime example of that.

Exercise them not at all and you'll lose them even faster. No right is lost faster than one not exercised.

I refer back to the yelling "fire" analogy, or "hi, jack," analogy. Both are appropriate here. They are legal and illegal depending on their context.
Yell "hi, jack," to a guy named Jack on the public street in downtown Cleveland, nobody cares. Change the context, put yourself in ANY location of an airport or on an airplane, and you'll be at least detained and there's a good chance you'll face federal charges. Same thing with yelling fire, there is a time and a place where it is clearly illegal.

Piffle and poppycock. You may be subject to a short investigatory detention, but there won't be any charges as soon as you point to your friend Jack.

Rights to carry are hard-fought and won, very narrowly. Idiots like this can get them taken away by very negative actions like this. It is quite telling that most pro-gun people on this forum are against this behavior. I've seen this discussion on a number of gun boards over the years when people open carry military guns at rallys[sic] and pull stunts like this at the airport. It is very unpopular among pro-gun crowd, due to the terrible public press. For the sake of pure argument, let's say that 2 in 10 (20%) of pro gun people are supportive. You can bet zero of the fence sitters (the crowd we really need) are supportive, and it gives the antis a lot of ammunition against us "loons."
You cannot deny it's a controlled environment. You are under strict watchful eye the moment you get onto airport property from cameras, police, TSA, and sometimes military. Suspect cars can and do get searched or towed, you can't park in certain drop off/pick up points, and yada yada yada.

Yes, I can deny that it's a controlled environment. The portion of the airport that the gentleman was in was open to the public and not restricted nor controlled by any sort of federal regulation, access control, security screening, or even a cardboard sign. TSA hasn't a dang thing to do with any area NOT past the passenger screening area. TSOs carry no weapons, and are not permitted to use force, nor do they have the power to arrest. If a TSO commands someone walking in one of the concourses to "HALT!" the person has every right to tell the blustery bustard to go pound sand. The TSA cannot legally arrest or detain under the authorities granted to it by the federal government, any detentions or arrests will be performed by law enforcement (which the TSA is not, has never been, and never will be.)

Where cars may park or drop off passengers is a city/airport matter and not subject to federal rules or regulation.

This isn't a unique or period difference in the difference of normal versus abnormal behavior. In peacetime, it would have never been normal to act this way - carrying a loaded military style weapon into a psuedo-secured entry point. Not in the 1800s, not in the 1900s, and not in the 2000s. It can rightly be viewed as a step toward hostilities.

It's not pseudo anything. It's a public area, freely accessible by the public (armed or unarmed, carrying concealed or openly.)

I doubt you can [be] intellectually honestly say that if you were to take your kid to school, and there was a man hovering around the school, let's say just beyond the "gun free" area, watching the kids with a pair of binoculars (totally legal) with an AR15 or a scoped hunting rifle slung on his back (assume that is legal where you live) - that you wouldn't feel apprehensive and alert authorities? Again, context. I would assume this guy is up to deviant plans.

Yeah, I might be apprehensive, but I might be apprehensive when I spot someone walking an American Pit Bull Terrier [...] It doesn't mean that [is] illegal, immoral, unethical, or shouldn't be done.
Then again, I might be extremely relieved it there had been recent threats by extremists and my estimation was that the gentleman was there to guard the lives of innocent children. To the best of m knowledge, it's not de rigueur for someone to wear a shiny bit of metal on their chests or have their paychecks signed by a public servant before they can be allowed to exercise the freedom to protect others as well as themselves.

I could come up with a million examples of normal behavior but abnormal or dangerous appearing in context.

I'll add that this is also viewed in military terms as "probing for weaknesses." By design, targets are probed for weaknesses, response to actions, etc. Carrying an open AR15 into such an area to view the response might be one of a million examples of this activity. And one more reason courts would immediately make it illegal.

Courts don't make things illegal, legislatures do. Further, as Armies the world over do, the government is 'fighting the last war' instead of looking ahead. Islamic extremists aren't going to attack airports in America again, they're going to look for a new, unprotected target; a new transportation hub, a shopping mall, perhaps even a sporting event (like the Boston Marathon). The tactic will be to bleed the Great Satan white as the US must now 'protect' a greater and greater number of venues.

Not a single Federal judge is going to say that it's okay to carry an AR15 loaded and in the open into an airport check in area. Not one.

Incorrect. Airport check-in areas are not located beyond the passenger screening area which is under federal control. Up to that point, the building is state owned or commercial property.
Had it not been okay, i.e. illegal, Mr Cooley would have been arrested and charged. He wasn't.

[mehavey]

Through his incredibly stupid and self-serving act, "Mr Cooley" has demonstrated what
the anti-gun crowd have been touting all along... that gun owners lack the judgement
to be entrusted with deadly weapons.

[zincwarrior]

Zinkwarrior: "Are you arguing that it is normal for a person to walk into an airport with a long gun? Please cite evidence to support your argument that it is normal to do so."

http://www.transcom.mil/dtr/part-iii...iii_app_bb.pdf see page 4.

You're citing military regulations?