Category: Gun Rights

Jacob has been covering it. It’s very close to final passage. Looks like they’re getting this infection from California. Let’s hope it doesn’t keep spreading. This basically will make semi-automatic pistols illegal in the Empire State, because the technology described does not exist. The law takes effect January 1, 2012, or upon certification by the State Police Commissioner. Even if the technology does exist, the legal risk involved in selling or owning guns would be so high I don’t think anyone should bother. Though, that’s the idea with this.

The bill, HB2536, to close the non-existent “Florida Loophole,” and proposes to weaken reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, has been scheduled for a vote in the Judiciary Committee on June 15th. It’s important we contact the members of the committee and let them know we don’t want this bill. Pretty clearly there are elements in the PA House that are not happy at our success with Castle Doctrine, and are looking for some pay backs. Let us deny that to them.

…. in Massachusetts? This passed in New Jersey, but it took Corzine putting everything he had behind it. It’s getting more costly to pass further gun control even in the states where support for gun control has traditionally been strong. We’re winning.

I mentioned a few days ago about the Boomersphere, and how it spreads around disinformation. PolitiFact is taking on the common e-mail I’ve been forwarded a few times by concerned boomers. I have mixed feelings on things like this. On the one hand, anything that gets people fired up for action on this issue is good. On the other hand, I like people to get angry about stuff the politicians are actually doing. PolitiFact does a good takedown, and gets the issues largely correct, which most people outside of this issue don’t. But even a treaty to which the United States is not a party is going to have effects on our being able to import guns from other countries, which has a huge effect on shooting here, since many of the popular guns sold these days are imported. To me that’s reason enough to oppose there being a treaty at all.

I should note for some commenters, that I should have acknowledged what an improvement SB308 makes to Georgia’s carry laws. I did not mean to overlook the significant improvement that represents for Georgia gun toters. The reason I focused heavily on the airport issue is because it has implications outside of Georgia. Some might recall a few years ago HB89 was passed, which specifically allowed for carry on public transit. Pretty soon after the bill was signed into law, the City of Atlanta declared that the new law did not apply to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. GeorgiaCarry.org, joined by pro-2A Representative Tim Bearden quickly filed suit in federal court. You can see all the pleadings and briefs for the case here.

To make a long story short, since I covered some of this in the previous post, the City of Atlanta proffered two arguments to keep their ban on carrying of firearms. The first argument was that HB89 did not apply to airports. The second, and far more worrisome argument was that federal law authorized local authorities to enact security measures, including banning guns if they felt it was necessary, and thus, through the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, was beyond the reach of state law. To clarify something that was misleading from my previous previous post, the the District Court only addressed the first argument, and dodged on the second. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals made reference to the federal preemption argument in a very brief ruling. It should be noted that this is not law, but if such an argument were to be upheld, it would apply to Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, all of which reside in the 11th Circuit. Fortunately for us, the Courts did not need to reach whether federal law empowering airport operators to implement a security plan can trump state law in matters of regulating non-sterile areas of an airport.

So in short, I’m happy for Georgians that some of their bad law was fixed, but there’s a giant can of worms that still exists with this airport since Perdue vetoed SB291. It’s an issue that warrants extreme caution going forward, not only for Georgians, but for the other states in the 11th Circuit, and for the country as a whole if a case goes that far.

Perdue signed SB 308, but vetoed SB 291. We had a bit of a disagreement with the Georgia folks on this one a while back, where I may have gotten one aspect of how the two laws would be treated wrong. As I mentioned in the latter post, I suspect NRA’s Lobbyist did not want to give Perdue a way to avoid dealing with the airport issue directly. His veto statement is thus:

SB 291 changes a variety of provisions within Georgia law regarding firearms. Among others, this bill would allow firearms to be carried into unsecure areas of airports. I have already signed SB 308, which clarifies Georgia’s public gathering statute and preserves the rights of private property owners. I believe this language is sufficient and adequately clarifies the law for Georgia firearms license holders. For this reason, and despite unwarranted intrusion into this state matter by ill-advised federal officials, I VETO SB 291.

I think the case for banning guns in Atlanta Airport is weakened by SB308, but I’m going to bet that the airport authorities will continue their defiance, using the still existing prohibition on guns in “government buildings,” which are defined as any place housing a “government entity,” meaning “an office, agency, authority, department, commission, board, body, division, instrumentality, or institution of the state or any county, municipal corporation, consolidated government, or local board of education within this state.”  I’d be hard pressed to believe there aren’t City of Atlanta agencies who are based at the airport.

Maybe Perdue thinks he already addressed the airport issue, but then why veto SB291 on that grounds? I think he’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. I’ll be very surprised if the end result of all this is the airport carry issue being fixed in Georgia. Aside from the fact the airport still has a plausible claim on state law, one of the things that Atlanta did last time they were sued is bring federal preemption issues into the mix, citing the Airport Security Directive from the TSA, which applies to all airport areas, sterile and non sterile. They claimed because this empowered airport officials with security for the whole airport, the airport officials could decide to ban guns if they felt that was necessary for security. Because this is a federal empowerment of local officials, the Supremacy Clause applies, and the airport’s operators’ judgement have precedent over state law. This would have been novel legal theory if the District Court hadn’t bought it, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it. If that’s upheld by the Supreme Court, local officials would be permitted to ban guns at any airport. Without crystal clear language in state law, this is a dangerous game we’re playing with this issue, with national implications. I do hope going forward we win on this issue, but I would suggest waiting for a fix in state law would be wise before further litigation proceeds.