The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 9, 2015, 06:31 AM   #126
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
I'd imagine airport management could have declared him trespassing and had the police escort him off though. They should have.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 06:42 AM   #127
4thPoint
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
I'd imagine airport management could have declared him trespassing and had the police escort him off though. They should have.
Nope, he was there to pick up a passenger, further he was in full compliance with all state laws, municipal ordinances, and airport rules. He assaulted no one, made no terroristic threats, did not panhandle, nor did he seem to have any contact with anyone that did not approach him first.

They could trespass him no more than they could trespass someone for the color of his skin. Hartsfield-Jackson isn't private property.

C'mon guys, this isn't exactly rocket science.
4thPoint is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 06:48 AM   #128
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
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?
Do you normally walk around in full fireman gear, carrying an ax and a 6inch hose?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 07:36 AM   #129
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
I'd imagine airport management could have declared him trespassing and had the police escort him off though. They should have.
Nope, he was there to pick up a passenger, further he was in full compliance with all state laws, municipal ordinances, and airport rules. He assaulted no one, made no terroristic threats, did not panhandle, nor did he seem to have any contact with anyone that did not approach him first.

They could trespass him no more than they could trespass someone for the color of his skin. Hartsfield-Jackson isn't private property.

C'mon guys, this isn't exactly rocket science.
Please support this with evidence that management could not have asked him to leave if it had desired.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 09:25 AM   #130
sicumj
Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2014
Posts: 19
There are many ways to detain an individual over bizarre disturbing behavior. Atlanta decided to let it pass. Everyone here hangs their hat on he simply was exercising a protected right. It was in the manner he chose to exercise that right that could have and should have got him in trouble. Maybe not found guilty of but certainly within the realm of probably cause that police utilize every day. I have to believe that decision to let him walk came from a higher authority not wanting to spend millions proving this man an idiot. You think Im wrong go ahead and suit up and try it at your local Walmart the outcome may not be the same. This type of behavior will not last and attempts to stop this will happen if this action continues.
sicumj is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 09:54 AM   #131
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

First, this episode actually demonstrates that even an armed ninnie wasn't actually a public harm. He drew a little attention, had a chat with POs, and dropped his daughter off. You don't want freedom of action to be limited to those who have demonstrated sufficient judgment to the satisfaction of a state minion.

Second, one should never contest the point that that some firearm owners lack good judgment. The point is certainly true, but not pertinent. Some people lack the good judgment to drive safely, write sensibly or buy healthy food.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 10:36 AM   #132
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Exercise them not at all and you'll lose them even faster. No right is lost faster than one not exercised.
Would you be so kind as to point out examples of that happening?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 10:39 AM   #133
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Quote:
Exercise them not at all and you'll lose them even faster. No right is lost faster than one not exercised.
Would you be so kind as to point out examples of that happening?
Well no one has used their rights against quartering troops for nearly a century. Almost no one uses that right now.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 10:45 AM   #134
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
When open carry comes up for a vote in your state, and the opposition puts video of this airport stunt on the air non-stop, tell all your friends and neighbors how walking around in urban settings is no big deal, and Cooley is comparable to Jesus or Gandhi.

With that kind of logic behind it, we'll be lucky to be able to carry a penknife beyond our front door in just a few more years.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 10:50 AM   #135
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
Why is it OK for Police and Military personnel to openly carry a firearm and everyone is ambivilent to there presence, but when a American citizen does it, the sky starts falling? And yet everyone says they supports the 2nd Amendment? Amazing.

Hundreds of thousands of military member have carried REAL "Military Rifles" in civilian airports for a long time (Well before 9-11 ). Is it the spiffy comabt pickle suit(digitals) they wear that put the public at ease? Nope. Maybe the citizenry was unable to see them, sence they blend into the environment so well? Nope. Was there rampit panic in the terminal as hundreds of Military Personnel filled through to their Milflight? Nope. Do police open carry firearms in Airports? Yep. Now here is the issue, our founding fathers wanted the citizenry to have the same arms and ability to bear arms to defend themselves as our Armed Military did, correct? if not, then cite source that founders did not beleave so.

Some may worry about the probing that a terrorist might do to test for weaknesses of a facility. Gentlemen, I don't fear an old guy, open carrying a rifle legally. If you do, then you're probably missing the clean cut young to middle aged man/woman with a briefcase or backpack that goes unnoticed by blending in. The open rifle carrier guy is known thing. The things that you don't see are often what is likely to be ones doom.

Additionally, by defining what this guy was carrying as a "Military Style Weapon" it would imply that there is some meaning to such a classification vs Open carrying a rifle. Are there any NON Military Style Weapons? If so what are they? Assuming there are any. what "Non-Military Style Rifle" would have been ok? If it doesn't matter, and all rifles would be just as offensive regardless, then why state it as an issue?

The "fire" in the theater issue, is not an about inflicting emotional distress on those in the theater that is the rub. Emotional distress was covered in Flint v. Falwell case. Thus, if yelling "Fire" in a public building was made Illegal, then what would happens if there was a fire in a theater? Everyone burns(great policy, roll eyes). The issue with "fire" in the theater is often used to make the point that even the first Amendment has limitations. Yep, it does. So what? There is already a law about pointing a gun at someone just to see them run like hell for a thrill already(just like the 1st A). Is there anyplace, in the U.S.A., that a citizen is not allowed to Pray even in "sensative areas"? Nope. Any "Pray free Zones"? Nope. The "fire" in the theater analogy has no bearing on the issue in the airport, unless you can prove that he was actively threatning people by pointing his rifle at them (which there is a law against).

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"

Hmmm. Does that assumption include the individuals that chose to conceal carry as well? Since, they carry their firearms in the same manner as common criminals, aren't they just as self serving? If not, then I find your logic falty. Officers of the Law often drive their police vehicles over the speed limit, fail to signal, fail to stop at stop signs....without any reason to do so, yet they write tickets for such violations on citizens for doing the same thing. Your argument sounds simular.
bandaid1 is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 10:59 AM   #136
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by k
When open carry comes up for a vote in your state, and the opposition puts video of this airport stunt on the air non-stop, tell all your friends and neighbors how walking around in urban settings is no big deal, and Cooley is comparable to Jesus or Gandhi.
What is the logic behind arguing for an activity to be prohibited by using an example in which no one was harmed?
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 11:30 AM   #137
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
Why is it OK for Police and Military personnel to openly carry a firearm and everyone is ambivilent to there presence, but when a American citizen does it, the sky starts falling? And yet everyone says they supports the 2nd Amendment? Amazing.
Because its really really hard to find circumstances where police and military have opened up on US civilians.

Its not hard at all to find circumstances where mass killers/terrorists have opened up or tried to open up on civilians.

Again, if you want to play cop graduate from Police Academy and become an officer. You don't have the same powers they do.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 11:37 AM   #138
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
This guy has not helped and probably hurt the cause of privite gun ownership, and the carrying of same.

The avg person seeing him in the airport was probably concerned. That does not sway the folks sitting on the fence about gun control to our side.

You cant compare his behavior to the UNIFORMED LEO or UNIFORMED military carrying openly in public. The UNIFORM is a visual badge showing the public that the LEO belongs there with that equipment.

Look at the dissenting opinions on THIS forum, and we are all PRO GUN. The public at large will have an even more negative view.

Events like this are the poster child for more restrictive regulations. This guy played right into the hands of the Anti's

Last edited by Tom Servo; June 9, 2015 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Reference to deleted post
Sharkbite is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 11:49 AM   #139
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thPoint
First, your second photo is from a movie, so it's not an illustration of something actually occurring at the historical time portrayed.

Second, we really don't know what folks thought about that then.

But in any case, that was then, and this is now. The reality is that social norms and values change over time. Many things which were socially acceptable 150 years ago aren't now. And many things which are socially acceptable now were not 150 years ago.

Reality is what goes on in the world -- not what goes on in your head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thPoint
..some people think it's fine if people with shiny bits of metal on their chests carry automatic weapons in the Airport...
Yes, that is true. Another example of reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4thPoint
Exercise them not at all and you'll lose them even faster. No right is lost faster than one not exercised.
Let's see some evidence. A lot of folks say this, but I have never seen a scintilla of evidence supporting that claim. On the other hand, as I pointed out in post 32 there are examples of rights being exercised in ways obnoxious to enough people to result in the conduct becoming illegal.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 11:53 AM   #140
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
Kilimanjaro: "When open carry comes up for a vote in your state"

No worriers, Permissive open carry is already legal in my state, and has been that way since I moved here in the 80's. Prior to that I lived in Vermont. What else you got?
bandaid1 is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:05 PM   #141
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
Frank: "Reality is what goes on in the world -- not what goes on in your head."

Really, prove it. When you think you see a car the light entering your eye triggers chemical reactions in the retina, these produce electro-chemical impulses which travel though nerve fibers to the brain. Then the brain analyses the data it receives, and then creates its own picture of what is out there. Then and only then have you had the experience of seeing a car. But what are you actually experiencing is not the car itself, or only the image that appears in the mind. Thus reality is in your mind.

Last edited by bandaid1; June 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM.
bandaid1 is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:07 PM   #142
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
No worriers, Permissive open carry is already legal in my state, and has been that way since I moved here in the 80's. Prior to that I lived in Vermont. What else you got?
What about other people in other states. This IDIOT is not just influencing the voting public in that state. He will show up across the nation as an example of WHY we cant be trusted with the right afforded us by 2A

Its nice that you think YOU are good to go. Some of us look at other factors
Sharkbite is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:19 PM   #143
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
It's a fair point that feelings and logic may bring people to different conclusions, but that doesn't bear on whether there is any logic to bringing up a benign incident as support for a prohibition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZincWarrior
Because its really really hard to find circumstances where police and military have opened up on US civilians.

Its not hard at all to find circumstances where mass killers/terrorists have opened up or tried to open up on civilians.

Again, if you want to play cop graduate from Police Academy and become an officer. You don't have the same powers they do.
In point of fact, american POs "open up on US civilians" daily, usually for good reason. Sometimes, as happened in Cleveland with Tamir Rice, as a matter of tragic error.

Moreover, POs are slightly more likely to engage in some forms of violent conduct, so it can't be having survived the rigors police training that cause most people little alarm at the sight of an armed PO. It is plausible to argue that ordinary sights will raise little alarm while extraordinary sights are more likely to cause alarm.

Last edited by Tom Servo; June 9, 2015 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Reference to deleted post
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:32 PM   #144
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Well no one has used their rights against quartering troops for nearly a century. Almost no one uses that right now.
The right not to have troops quartered in my home still stands. If such a situation were to come up, the courts would protect that right.

I hear the "use it or lose it" argument from the open-carry folks all the time. It may sound satisfying (at least to an approving chorus), but it has no verifiable basis in fact.

Quote:
Second, we really don't know what folks thought about that then.
To some extent, we do. They didn't approve. I posted a few examples a couple of pages back, and I can dig up more if need be. As long as we've had firearms, there have been restrictions on how they're carried in public. In fact, the earliest I've found goes back to 1523.

There has never been a halcyon golden age in which people could walk around anywhere they want, carrying any kind of weapon they want. That's a romanticized view taken from 1950's fictional cowboy movies. It really concerns me that open-carry advocates base some of their arguments on that.

Quote:
Really, prove it. (...) what are you actually experiencing is not the tree itself, only the image that appears in the mind. Thus reality is in your mind.
Ontological debates are outside the scope of this argument. The dent in my car attests that the tree is very real.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:33 PM   #145
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
You did not cite anything to show police have anywhere near the instances of attempted mass killing, with or without a rifle.

Please cite an instance where a police officer walked into an airport and started attacking people.

Please cite an instance where a police officer walked into a restaurant and started shooting people.

Please cite an instance where a police officer walked into a school and started shooting people.

please cite an instance where a police officer walked into a theater and started shooting people.

Please cite an instance where a police officer attempted to kill dozens of people at a cartoon competition.



Quote:
Quote:
Well no one has used their rights against quartering troops for nearly a century. Almost no one uses that right now.
The right not to have troops quartered in my home still stands. If such a situation were to come up, the courts would protect that right.

I hear the "use it or lose it" argument from the open-carry folks all the time. It may sound satisfying (at least to an approving chorus), but it has no verifiable basis in fact.
Clearly my attempt at humor failed.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:39 PM   #146
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
"...doesn't bear on whether there is any logic to bringing
up a benign incident as support for a prohibition...."
But in the mind of the Fearful, it's a man "waving an assault weapon around in a crowded airport full of women and children..." (remember now, it's presented for emotion -- not for fact).

That we have such people even in the highest echelons of those we would ordinarily think of as 2A friends should not be passed over lightly. (to wit: Yesterday afternoon I listened to Fox/Megyn Kelly expound at length on the common-sense goodness of Universal Background Checks)
mehavey is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:43 PM   #147
bandaid1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
Sharkbite: "What about other people in other states"

Ok, I'll bite, what about them? There are currently only 6 states that ban open carry. Calif, NY, Ill, FL, SC and TX. In SC the house just passed unlicensed concealed carry, the vote was 90 to 18 http://www.guns.com/2015/04/27/south...utional-carry/. TX looks like they will soon get open carry by January. California has the lawsuit pending on the issue in the 9th Circuit.

I'm not sure what you want me to say. Keep fighting the good fight?

Hooyah
bandaid1 is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 12:51 PM   #148
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by mehavey
But in the mind of the Fearful, it's a man "waving an assault weapon around in a crowded airport full of women and children..." (remember now, it's presented for emotion -- not for fact).
For that emotional impact to manifest, doesn't one need a harm to manifest? That's why Newtown was so sad and potentially effective for those who sought to exploit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
You did not cite anything to show police have anywhere near the instances of attempted mass killing, with or without a rifle.
Why would anyone cite that for which you have not asked?

It is beyond dispute that POs shoot people daily, usually for the better. If you doubt that, you should feel free to watch the local news in lots of cities for a couple of weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The dent in my car attests that the tree is very real.
Of course, you only know the dent is real because it is really a perception known to your mind. I suppose that's more epistemic than ontological. (EDIT - I am smiling, but I refuse to employ emoticons)
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 01:20 PM   #149
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
Quote:
That's why you can't be trespassed from a public park simply because you prefer tomato based bbq sauce to that abomination known as vinegar based sauce.
Really. Thats enlightening. Thanks!
zincwarrior is offline  
Old June 9, 2015, 01:21 PM   #150
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Things are getting intemperate. Posts have been deleted, and people have received stern talkings-to.

Does anyone remember the name of the guy who carried a rifle into the airport? No? That's because this whole thing has wandered far afield.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10392 seconds with 10 queries