Federal Court Dismisses Airport Case

U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob granted the City of Atlanta’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed GCO’s lawsuit against the city over whether the city may arrest GFL holders for carrying guns in the unsecure areas of the Atlanta airport.  In his order, Judge Shoob found that HB 89 does not apply to the Airport and thus state law continues to criminalize carrying a firearm in the Airport.  GCO intends to appeal the order, which may be read here.


6 Responses to “Federal Court Dismisses Airport Case”

  1. mark5019 Says:

    i hope the appeal gets a wiser judge

  2. b8fish Says:

    1) The GA legislature is bound to clarify their intent now in the ’09 session so that even a Federal judge can understand it.

    2) And/or GCO will prevail in yet another US Appeals Court ruling.

    Short term setback, long term gain.

  3. gsusnake Says:

    The Eleventh Circuit will hopefully see the misinterpretation of some key definitions on the judge’s part and work to correct those.

  4. iamacitizen Says:

    The arrogant insolence of judges legislating from the bench works only to errode respect for the rule of law. Along with unresponsive legislators, and an out of control executive it’s gratifying the Constitutional Founders of this country had the foresight to acknowledge the right of its citizenry to be armed.

  5. TBILL Says:

    Federal Judges are tpp isolated from the real world and by and large don’t have to live with the chaos their rulings create. This is just like Shirley Franklin flanked by her 24/7 armed bodyguards saying the only people she wants to carry concealed are criminals. Shoob put no more thought into his ruling than she did that statement. Shoob needs to read the Bible and discover who God really is and his first name isn’t Marvin or Shirley. Marvin, why don’t you come on down to the airport and wander around long term parking about 1am without your personal security and both hands full of bags and see how safe you feel?

  6. RosebudEnt Says:

    I agree with all of the comments I’ve read thus far. However, I do believe that a lot of this misinterpretation by Shoob could have been avoided if the legislators had added to 16-12-122 a clear definition of public transportation, to include the unsecured parts of the airport and their adjacent areas.

    I realize the law already states that carrying a firearm in the unsecured areas of the airport is not off limits to GFL holders. Anyone with sense can see this was the intent of the General Assembly. However, I’ve found that when it comes to legislation there is no such thing as overstating anything.

    A clear definition is what idiots like Shoob require to prevent them from finding loopholes by which to promulgate their faulty agendas. Perhaps a clear definition will be added the next time around, given this obvious misinterpretation.