Atlanta Airport & Open Carry of an AR15

[leadcounsel]

The recent SCOTUS decisions were 5/4. The reason the NRA was against SCOTUS cases before was that they feared a clear cut Constitutional loss.

A VERY important point to remember. And lets not forget the current administration has appointed hundreds of Federal Judges, and 2 SCOTUS appointments, with a 3rd still possible in the next year.

Our rights are still hanging in the balance.

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? Look at Sandy Hook, just a few years ago. Several states responded, banning this and that. And there was strong AWB talk again.

Stupid, just stupid.

[Tom Servo]

I don't recall using the word 'humiliating', if the gentleman would refrain from 'straw man' arguments, it would be appreciated.

No, you didn't use it. I did. And that's exactly what the people in Tarrant and on YouTube are doing: cop-shaming for page hits.

Before the advent of YouTube and social media, I never heard of people doing things like this. Take those venues out of the equation, and people would stop doing it. It's got nothing to do with "educating" anyone. It's self-serving grandstanding.

It is not normal behavior to march through a crowded airport with a military rifle slung across the chest. That has never been normal behavior, and I doubt it ever will be. Concealed carry of handguns is allowed in the airport. If defending his family is such an issue, he has that option.

If I want to educate a police department about the finer points of a law, I'll ask to speak to them one morning at roll call. Guess which approach will do the most good for the most people.

[SHR970]

leadcouncil you said

Idiots like this guy OCing a loaded AR into the entry of a highly secure area put us at risk of losing rights, not gaining more.

There is a big difference between up to the entry and into the entry

If he had gone into the entry he would have been in violation as he would have been in the secure area.

This little detail is is the type of thing that you lawyers parse over all the time.

[Sharkbite]

OMG

Anywhere in the Airport was STUPID

[overthere]

With friends like Jim Cooley, the 2nd amendment needs no enemies. Too clever by half and too ignoramus by 10.

[4thPoint]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

Anywhere in the Airport was STUPID

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.

Until it becomes Federally controlled area, the Atlanta airport is no different than any other government building in Georgia. We passed laws making it so.

[Tom Servo]

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?

Have you flown lately? There's a heightened sensitivity to security in airports. In a place like Hartsfield, you have travellers from all over the world. Many of those people are not used to civilian gun ownership, and stunts like open carry will make them nervous.

Frankly, carrying an AR-15 in a sporting arena or bus depot would also do more harm than good.

[4thPoint]

Originally Posted by SHR970

leadcouncil you said

There is a big difference between up to the entry and into the entry

If he had gone into the entry he would have been in violation as he would have been in the secure area.

This little detail is is the type of thing that you lawyers parse over all the time.

Kinda strange that leadcouncil wouldn't even remember his own words, isn't it?

It's the difference between going up to the entrance of someone's private property and going into their house.

[4thPoint]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Have you flown lately? There's a heightened sensitivity to security in airports. In a place like Hartsfield, you have travellers from all over the world. Many of those people are not used to civilian gun ownership, and stunts like open carry will make them nervous.

Frankly, carrying an AR-15 in a sporting arena or bus depot would also do more harm than good.

Your point boils down to "Because it's a gol-durned airport", I'd hoped for better. What intrinsically makes an airport any different than any other place where there are crowds of people??

Yeah, I fly about once every 5 or 6 weeks, on average. Guess what airport is my home base? I'll give you a hint, it's the busiest commercial airport in the United States and has a joined name with a former Atlanta Mayor.

My legislators proposed House Bill 60, my Governor signed HB 60. HB 60 is the bill which expressly authorized the gentleman's conduct.

My Governor was interviewed and had no problems with the gentleman's conduct. That pretty much says it for me.

[Tinbucket]

Everyone has been conditioned by anti gun hysteria and the media to fear ordinary folks doing ordinary things such as firearms carry.
I too would be concerned seeing someone with a firearm at port arms.
however strapped to their back.
People need to rethink what they are seeing.
As a child everyone carried rifles or shotguns in their cars or trucks and frequently a pistol on their hip.
My Grandmother lived in the country and it was common.
In town people were gentrified and prohibited by Jim Crow Laws from carrying a firearm.
In town, of course there was not much need then.
These days with the Baltimore DA's attitudes and disrespect for law and order and other people and their property, I'm surprised a lot more aren't packing.
Does anyone think, that if the Shop Owners and other Law Abiding , Honorable Citizens were armed, that the thugs would have burned, burglarized, assaulted people and burned cars?
No they wouldn't because they would reasonably expect to have been killed, if they did it.
Instead the [politicians] disarmed the Honorable Citizens of Maryland, and the thugs and predators felt the had a free fire range where there were only Victims and the Police backe off in cooperation to let them do it.
So I'm no going to panic if I see someone with a holstered weapon or a riffle slung on their back. I will look a little longer at the rifle though.
I ,as did everyone prior to 9/11, carry rifles or shotguns, in the rack behind the seat , in the rear window, of my pickup.
I'm thinking of doing it again. A shotgun in the top and a fishing rod in the second one. Gotta put them somewhere.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
SHR970 said: He was not in the secure part of the airport!
I clearly said at the ENTRY POINT of a secured area.

Quote:
Leadcounsel: Idiots like this guy OCing a loaded AR into the entry of a highly secure area put us at risk of losing rights, not gaining more.
In the military, this is what we would consider approaching hostile intent. Say, for instance, at a checkpoint a person walks up with a loaded (mag in the magwell) AK47. We'd be authorized to detain or even shoot.

Before you go into the "this isn't the military, this isn't a warzone" diatribe, it's the same principle. Putting people on apprehension and fear at the entry point of a secured area.

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.

Same thing at the airport. For now it may be lawful, but I bet that changes thanks to this moron. It's the communication of hostile intent and the feeling of apprehension it causes. I am 100% pro gun, but if I'm at the airport standing around to check in and thereby unarmed, and I see some guy walking around with an locked and loaded AR, I'm going to be extremely concerned, move, take cover, and report him. Mass shootings are a thing of today and putting people in apprehension is not helpful.

These acts set us back, not forward.

Excellent points.

[NJgunowner]

I think this just boils down to this guy looking for his 5 minutes of fame... or notoriety depending your view. It was childish and stupid. And honestly, a drum magazine? Really? You aren't looking for self defense with a drum, frankly I've never seen one that was all that reliable.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Everyone has been conditioned by anti gun hysteria and the media to fear ordinary folks doing ordinary things such as firearms carry.

Ummm, No! Concealed carry or even open carry of a pistol for self-defense is ordinary. Carrying a loaded rifle is WAY over the top. If I'm ever in an area where I feel the need for a rifle to protect myself, I'm probably going to seriously reassess my need to go into that area. Carrying a pistol says "self-defense" to me, while carrying a rifle conveys a clear intention to do harm, IMHO.

I'm not terribly in favor of the Texas open carry movement carrying around loaded rifles and shotguns, but that's the only option they had to draw attention to their cause.

[dakota.potts]

So for the people here who are against long gun open carry, what do you think of the states where it is the only way to carry a firearm without a license, and is possibly the only method of self-defense some people have (namely those aged 18-20 or those who don't have the money for classes and licensing)?

Obviously, that was not the case here, but there are certain states where that is the case. South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas come to mind.

[BarryLee]

for the people here who are against long gun open carry

I don’t believe most people here are opposed to open carry in general or specifically open carry of a long gun. However, this specific case and other similar incidents only serve to threaten all of our rights. Any rational person can look at the politics of the situation and realize it will only take a minor shift in public opinion to make any open carry illegal.

[zincwarrior]

Obviously, that was not the case here, but there are certain states where that is the case. South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas come to mind.

Sorry but you are misinformed.
Texas has long gun OC.
Texas has CHL.
Regardless of the above one may have a firearms in their vehicle, domicile, and to and from both.

In Jan 2016 Texas will have pistol OC.
In south Texas we have heavy weapon OC and occasionally trade fire with Mexico...

[bumnote]

A guy walks into a airport or goes shopping at a Walmart with an AR, AK, whatever type of "evil black gun" it happens to be...he's doing every gun owner a huge disservice.
Almost everyone who comes into contact with this moron goes from visiting an airport or shopping to going home and thinking about gun control....and the overwhelming majority of it isn't in our favor nor is it something they likely would have done that day or in that type of a setting had it not been for this idiot. It's heaven sent PR for the anti-gun movement.

I CCW everywhere I can and vote accordingly, I'll exercise my rights in that manner, not by scaring the crap out of others or creating tension in a public environment. I'm also a lot less likely to get my butt shot because of the heightened tension created by doing this. Open carrying a long gun is never going to seem normal at an airport, in an urban environment, or just about anywhere that isn't rural...I've lived in both. If I'd been there and saw this, I'd get nervous, and I'm armed. My first thought is not going to be that guy's just open carrying a rifle for SD. My first immediate thought is going to be...leave the area. Even after that I'd never take my eyes off him. I'm going to view him as a potential threat the entire time we're sharing a public space.
Suppose this guy further compounded the tension by taking the rifle and moved it from slung across his back to the front of him while standing in the middle of an airport or store? A nervous armed security guard, cop or average person with a CCW could make a huge mistake and shoot him.
I fail to see how this protects an individual any better that a concealed handgun or open carried handgun, doesn't create unwarranted tension in public, or protects 2nd Amendment rights in the least. I think it's only a matter of time before something like this ends tragically for the individual doing it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's another take. Some gun folks are desperate to describe the AR platform as a modern sporting rifle. They want to down play its 'weapon' and lethal force usage. The idea is that it is a nice gun for the sportsperson.

Well, there are no critters to hunt in the airport or sports targets to be shot. The gun is carried as an instrument of lethal force. Doesn't that negate the modern sports rifle argument.

Oh, well.

As far as the airport vs. the mall and church/religious venues - airports are particular targets for terrorists. Yes, the mall and church are too. Guess what the terrorists walk in with long guns. So if you do, yes - you do raise apprehension.

So for the people here who are against long gun open carry, what do you think of the states where it is the only way to carry a firearm without a license, and is possibly the only method of self-defense some people have (namely those aged 18-20 or those who don't have the money for classes and licensing)?

As far as this statement - you might think this is rude but:

1. Wait till you become old enough. That's true for a lot of things.
2. Money - get a night job. I've worked two jobs for almost all my life. My father did too. This is America - if you don't have the money, work for it. Unless you are disabled or ill - that is the solution.
3. If you don't have the money for training, then I'm not that comfortable with you shooting the crap out of the mall with an AR.

[bandaid1]

Wow, I wasn't going to comment any more about this issue, but after reading the opinions of late I feel compelled to do so.

Many appear to be touting the Concealed Carry thing, which is fine but that a privilege, unless they live in a State with a complete Constitutional Carry which as of July 1, 2015, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming are the only ones. I reject the idea that as long as the people of a State have a "Shall issue" ability to get a concealed carry permit, for a fee and with other conditions(age), that the right to bear arms has been met. In my opinion, that is extortion.

Tom Servo: "It is not normal behavior to march through a crowded airport with a military rifle slung across the chest. That has never been normal behavior, and I doubt it ever will be. Concealed carry of handguns is allowed in the airport. If defending his family is such an issue, he has that option.

What do you consider "normal behavior" and what do you base this opinion on that it was not normal? 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 and every semi-auto handgun is a hand held Military Weapon as well. Additionally, stating that concealed carry is legal and allowed negates the fact that, in that State, open carry is also. 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? Appearance? Really?

"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.

leadcounsel: "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? Look at Sandy Hook, just a few years ago. Several states responded, banning this and that. And there was strong AWB talk again."

On the issue of the AR and AKs, the same could be said about a person with a concealed carry handgun shooting up the place, or a bomb, or chemical device. All of them are illegal. How is that any different?
Do I think that politicians will ignore it if, as you have said, someone starts shooting? That depends on a good many things.

Firearms, knives, swords, ball bats, bows and arrows, crowbars, sticks and stones, etc. are all just TOOLS. By definition, People are the Weapon Systems. Maybe they should just ban "people" at the airport, that would fix the problem. Same logic.

Weapon System: (Noun) a weapon and the components necessary to its proper function, such as targeting and guidance devices.

I would remind others that 18-20 year olds defend this country, and they have earned their Constitutional RIGHT to defend themselves.

[zincwarrior]

I would remind others that 18-20 year olds defend this country, and they have earned their Constitutional RIGHT to defend themselves.

But they can't buy alcohol.

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.

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.

[dakota.potts]

1. Wait till you become old enough. That's true for a lot of things.
2. Money - get a night job. I've worked two jobs for almost all my life. My father did too. This is America - if you don't have the money, work for it. Unless you are disabled or ill - that is the solution.
3. If you don't have the money for training, then I'm not that comfortable with you shooting the crap out of the mall with an AR.
__________________

I understand that the man in this case was not exercising prudence (and I believe I said something to that effect around page 2 of this thread).

However, I don't think the second amendment placed limits on what type of firearms could be carried. A person should not have to wait an extra 2 years to earn an inherent right, nor should they have to work an extra job to afford the permit to do so. It's $120 here in Florida. Not to mention the 6-8 weeks it can take to get one.

Putting aside the AR for a second, if all I have is grandpa's shotgun or Mini 14 and I feel the need to carry it for self defense now, would you argue that I should not have the right to do so, or only that you would disagree with me doing so?

I'm not for in your face displays of an AR with a beta mag at a crowded air port, but it seems like that's not being differentiated from any OC of a long gun.

[zincwarrior]

Putting aside the AR for a second, if all I have is grandpa's shotgun or Mini 14 and I feel the need to carry it for self defense now, would you argue that I should not have the right to do so, or only that you would disagree with me doing so?

I'm not for in your face displays of an AR with a beta mag at a crowded air port, but it seems like that's not being differentiated from any OC of a long gun.

I would not support carrying any long gun into an airport.

Again, when people were more regular in carrying long guns (when I was young and dinosaurs roamed) we wouldn't think of carrying long guns into such places. You left them in your vehicles. Your mother raised you better than that.

[BarryLee]

Putting aside the AR for a second, if all I have is grandpa's shotgun or Mini 14 and I feel the need to carry it for self defense now, would you argue that I should not have the right to do so,

If local laws allow I would have no problem with someone carrying a long gun. For instance if all you can legally carry is a Mini-14 and you need to go to the ATM I have no issues with that in general. However, if the ATM is in the local mall and it’s full of folks shopping, dining or seeing a movie do you think that would be a good idea.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Having the right and the appearance issue are two different things. Folks continue to ignore that.

We know that ARs prime negative attitudes in many people. You can call them modern sporting rifles, deny they are military in use and appearance, deny they are technically assault rifles - but that's the reality.

Given the world we live in - a person with a long arm (and I'd bet you a bolt action, scoped rifle would get you a look too) that strolls around in a venue that has attracted rampage shooters and terrorists is violating a norm and seen a threat by most - including the gun world.

So Mr. Potts - if you stroll into the showing of Batman with your AR to defend yourself - you can bet that many CHL or CCW types are planning to shoot you full of holes as compared to congratulating a young man on the RKBA.

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.

[zukiphile]

From the OP, it looks as if the POs handled this appropriately, looking into odd behavior and keeping an eye on the fellow.

Originally Posted by Skizzums

it was just a matter of time before someone took our newly dubbed "guns everywhere" law too far and made people uncomfortable with it. it was pretty much out of everyone's minds here since it passed w/o mass blood in the streets, and this guy has to go an inflame the sides again. it's stupid and irresponsible. the fact that you can do it, is a protection for us, not meant to start the flailing of long-arms in the airport, although it is allowed....probably not for long if people keep it up.

if you guys can't realize that "assault rifles" with drum mags can make everyday people uncomfortable and even fear for their lives, than I don't know what to tell you.

There was a time when the sight of a pistol made enough people uncomfortable that OC was a problem in many places. Note that the pistol is now set forth as the socially responsible alternative.

This fellow sounds like a dope, and he might look like a dope at the airport or the range. That's my own judgment about drum magazines rather than a legal conclusion. I do wonder about those who write approvingly about "ventilating" this character.

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

NO not at all. The ability to walk around with a rifle at an airport lacks supportable reasoning.

A right against the government that one holds only so long as it makes no one uncomfortable or for which he can voice reasoning isn't much of a right.

An AR isn't an anti-aircraft weapon. The only pertinent trait of an airport is that it is a busy public place, so an argument about having a rifle at an airport will also apply to a bus station or grocery.

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

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

If a rifle has utility in the vicinity of an airport, it has utility to both POs and non-POs. Someone who notes that isn't expressing a desire to be a PO.


As another noted in this thread, I am not generally an open carrier, and I haven't a tacticool bone in my body. I do think of this as a legal issue rather than a matter of group identity.

When someone says something stupid, 1st Am. activists don't fret over how stupid speech endangers their speech, or muse about how embarrassing it is to the speech community that some speak without due consideration of others. Their normal response is "That's stupid, and that's why the right is protected".