TSA Exceeding Its Lawful Authority?

They are considering banning guns at airports entirely, despite what state law may say about the matter.  Since when did airports become federal installations?  I’m sorry to say, but if this passes, Philadelphia will, no doubt, exercise this authority, which means I won’t be able to go to the GBR III event, since it seems to indicate they can just ban them:

The Airports Council International said in a recent letter to Hartsfield, “There is no justification for permitting firearms at any airport.” Policies vary from state to state and from airport to airport. Some bar guns fully, others allow them, sometimes in areas such as a parking lot, said Charles Chambers, the council’s security chief.

Hartsfield spokesman Herschel Grangent said that someone firing a gun in the airport would force a massive evacuation that could disrupt flights nationwide. Hartsfield, with 89 million passengers in 2007, is the world’s busiest airport.

Just one more reason to avoid flying.  This is going to be a bitch on competitive shooters if TSA doesn’t make exceptions.  Does TSA even have the legal authority to do this?

UPDATE: Looking at the relevant US Code and Federal Regulations regarding airport security, it is my, admitedly non-professional opinion, that the banning firearms from airports entirely would require a change in the Code of Federal Regulations (which is subject to the rulemaking process), but because the US Code demands the screening of all passengers and property, essentially you’d have to make the entire airport a secured area, meaning banning them in the parking lots would be largely impossible.  The Aviation and Transportation Security Act doesn’t seem to grant TSA the power to regulate activity in the non-secured areas of airports.  They seem to be able to issue recommendations, so they could certainly recommend to the State of Georgia to ban guns in its airports, but in my reading, they can’t force the issue.

Are You Sure Senator?

Apparently Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is inserting himself into the Mary McFate controversy.

Although the NRA and I certainly have had our disagreements over the years, I hope that we can agree that the gun violence prevention debate should be based upon an open and honest exchange of ideas, not on underhanded tactics.

I question whether the Senator really understands what he’s asking for here.  There’s been very little that’s honest about gun control organizations, which is why they don’t want to have an “open an honest” conversation about the matter.  Otherwise how can they take bloggers out of context, mislead the public about the nature of firearms, firearms owners, the NRA, and the second amendment. Would you like to have an open and honest discussion in public about the nature of the “Terrorist Watch List” that you want use to deny Americans fundamental rights?

We’re completely willing to have an open and honest exchange of ideas, Senator.  Are you sure your allies in the gun control movement are willing to do that?

Looks Safe to Me

Blue Trail Range is still closed, but the picture in this article shows a rifle’s eye view of the firing line, with a bulldozer building up the berm in the back.  You can’t see much sky there, and I don’t think the baffling there allows enough elevation for a bullet to head over that mountain.  At this point, you’re probably either dealing with people who just hate guns, or hate physics.  One of the two.

Incoming!

I thought this would be an appropriate title to reflect my “bunker mentality.”  The Brady Campaign has fired a salvo in our direction.  Like I said, we have the inherent disadvantage of having our disagreements out in the open where everyone can see it.  Fortunately for us, the only people who read the Brady Blog are gun nuts.

I will not take exception to the Brady Campaign trying to paint us as extremist.  I would expect nothing less from them.  But I do take exception to the notion that the topic of revolt isn’t a legitimate one, not deserving of being seriously addressed.  How many dangerous ideas throughout history have taken root because people dismissed them as nonsense?  There are people out there who, misguidedly, in my opinion, believe our Republic is a lost cause.  I do not share this sentiment, but it’s out there.  I don’t think dismissing it outright is a productive way of dealing with it.

Quote of the Day

From Paul Helmke:

“It raises some real concerns with the tactics of the NRA. If they’ve got one person, maybe they have more. If they’ve done this dirty trick, what else have they done?” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which planned to search its offices for listening devices and computer spyware.

Paul, seriously.  You’re giving way too much credit to NRA.  Listening devices?  Spyware?  Have you seen NRA’s web site recently Paul?  Trust me.  You won’t find anything.  If you do, then I’ll be the first one to bitch that such enormous technical talent is going to waste spying on the Bradys rather than giving NRA a really solid web presence.  I’ve never seen G. Gordon Liddy hanging out at NRA events.  I think you’re safe from bugs, black bag jobs, and various other malfeasance.  Relax, and enjoy some Tequila.

Helping DC Learn to Shoot

Looks like the NSSF is running some ads in DC.  The Bradys will no doubt spin this as the gun industry trying to peddle their wares on people who will just use them to shoot loved ones and commit suicide.  Well, it’s a free country, and guns are legal.  So even if NSSF is out to market their legal product, I have no problem.

But I think, and I would hope the Brady Campaign would agree, that if Washington D.C. residents can legally purchase an keep arms, that they ought to get involved with the shooting community and learn how to be responsible with them.  Kudos to the NSSF for reaching out to people who might be thinking about buying a firearm, and helping them get the training they need.