You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atlanta Airport & Open Carry of an AR15
- Thread starter BarryLee
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
leadcounsel
Moderator
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.
This is borderline yelling fire in a theater. It can cause significant panic, diversion of resources, mis-responding by law enforcement, accidental shooting, etc. Imagine the abuse of 10 terrorists showing up with their OC rifles and then getting the drop on airport security and taking over...
His right? For now, I suppose. I won't be surprised when that right evaporates or is voted away due to stunts like this. How much of a hassle will it become when you can't bring a firearm into the unsecured areas to check it on the plane, or even carry a concealed one to pick up a passenger or drop off a passenger!
This is borderline yelling fire in a theater. It can cause significant panic, diversion of resources, mis-responding by law enforcement, accidental shooting, etc. Imagine the abuse of 10 terrorists showing up with their OC rifles and then getting the drop on airport security and taking over...
His right? For now, I suppose. I won't be surprised when that right evaporates or is voted away due to stunts like this. How much of a hassle will it become when you can't bring a firearm into the unsecured areas to check it on the plane, or even carry a concealed one to pick up a passenger or drop off a passenger!
This is borderline yelling fire in a theater. It can cause significant panic, diversion of resources, mis-responding by law enforcement, accidental shooting, etc. Imagine the abuse of 10 terrorists showing up with their OC rifles and then getting the drop on airport security and taking over...
Yep. Good analogy. What would have been the result if people had seen this idiot with his rifle and panic had ensued?? A couple people scream "He has a gun!!" And start running.
With the history of mass shootings around the world, it would not be unlikely to cause a panic.
So then the national news carrys a story that spreads more dislike for guns in the general populace. A new call for AWB's.... Tighter restrictions on our "rights"
Come on...be smart about this stuff. Anytime there is a gun present it is a "no stupid zone". This guy was stupid
Prof Young
New member
It's a matter of decorum . . .
It's a matter of decorum. In a civilized culture we have social expectations about how people should behave. Mr Cooley could have gone to the airport wearing nothing but a speedo swim suit. He would not have been breaking the law but people would have looked and stared and wondered just like they did with the gun. Although he LEO's might not have questioned him.
This is ONE of the reasons we have concealed carry. Guns in the open tend to get people, especially non-gun people, concerned and excited. Why flaunt it?
My LEO step-son occasionally gets a "man with gun" call and it may be something as simple as a guy cleaning his guns on the front porch of his house. In that case it's an over reaction on the part of others and the gun cleaning guy is not violating any social norms. (Heck when I want to do a thorough cleaning of a gun and know I'll be using a lot of Hoppes I go out on the deck which is in full view of the local police station just across the street.)
We have to hang on to our gun rights tightly. But we don't gain any "ground" by being in the face of our culture and flaunting our rights. It's conceivable that the results of Mr. Cooley's actions would be a total ban on fire arms in air ports, a loss for gun rights, not a gain.
Live well, be safe
Prof Young
It's a matter of decorum. In a civilized culture we have social expectations about how people should behave. Mr Cooley could have gone to the airport wearing nothing but a speedo swim suit. He would not have been breaking the law but people would have looked and stared and wondered just like they did with the gun. Although he LEO's might not have questioned him.
This is ONE of the reasons we have concealed carry. Guns in the open tend to get people, especially non-gun people, concerned and excited. Why flaunt it?
My LEO step-son occasionally gets a "man with gun" call and it may be something as simple as a guy cleaning his guns on the front porch of his house. In that case it's an over reaction on the part of others and the gun cleaning guy is not violating any social norms. (Heck when I want to do a thorough cleaning of a gun and know I'll be using a lot of Hoppes I go out on the deck which is in full view of the local police station just across the street.)
We have to hang on to our gun rights tightly. But we don't gain any "ground" by being in the face of our culture and flaunting our rights. It's conceivable that the results of Mr. Cooley's actions would be a total ban on fire arms in air ports, a loss for gun rights, not a gain.
Live well, be safe
Prof Young
Prof Young wrote: But we don't gain any "ground" by being in the face of our culture and flaunting our rights.
I beg to differ. Generally speaking you have a point..however I have been reading the same arguements in this thread that were being thrown about against the open carry movement in Cali. In the original court case of Peruta the judge cited the limited and very restricted open carry in Cali. to be the reason for finding against Peruta as his rights were not totally violated.
After the decision, the brain trusts in CowTown passed legislation banning open carry. With the Gov.s signature, they evicerated the legal mental gymnastics and opened the case wide up. The appeal went our way.... and after much delay and much legal contortions, we now are going en banc.
Being "in the face" could very well be what it takes to force Cali. to be Shall Issue.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That is always an empirical question as what the courts will do.
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.
Even with the win, the reasonable restrictions prose is seeming to have caught on as supporting gun restrictions.
You just never know. I read an analysis of Judicial decisions at SCOTUS. The major of variance seemed to be the justices' politics. Then one can find precedents for anything.
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.
Even with the win, the reasonable restrictions prose is seeming to have caught on as supporting gun restrictions.
You just never know. I read an analysis of Judicial decisions at SCOTUS. The major of variance seemed to be the justices' politics. Then one can find precedents for anything.
"In the face" is what got California the Mulford Act in the first place. The "in the face" rifle open-carry demonstrations are what got the UOC loophole closed a couple of years back. The only change we saw from those shenanigans was negative.Being "in the face" could very well be what it takes to force Cali. to be Shall Issue.
Does the situation lend some impetus to Peruta? In theory, yes. In practice, however, the case is in a holding pattern. The panel could still reverse the decision.
What then? Supreme Court? Maybe, if they choose to hear it. We've had several pressing cases so far, and they've refused to address the issue.
The whole narrative that the UOC movement forced anyone's hand is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There is some logic to forcing someone's hand. It is in the general world view of the underlying issue.
In the Civil Rights movement, the confrontational issue with police, as in Selma, caused police actions that most of the country thought as unreasonable given our fundamental view of rights. The minorities were victims of truly invidious oppression.
Some of the gun world may view the carrying of such military appearing weapons as fundamental as the rights to vote, not suffer segregation, job and housing discrimination, etc. However, the right to vote, etc. is probably not seen in the same positive light as carrying an extremely dangerous weapon.
Two cases in point, the CA carrying of legal arms by the Black Panthers and the open carry pistol demonstrations led to bans on such. There was not an outcry of rights violation. Those actions were seem as fundamentally dangerous without competing good by many.
To the general public and a good part of the gun world, an AR with an 100 round mag in an airport suggests no good as compared to the good of ending discrimination.
Thus, the in your face argument ignores the dynamics of attitude analyses. Of course, if you are part of the gun world - you may not accept this. Many would prefer the uproar and even loss if it makes their point.
In the Civil Rights movement, the confrontational issue with police, as in Selma, caused police actions that most of the country thought as unreasonable given our fundamental view of rights. The minorities were victims of truly invidious oppression.
Some of the gun world may view the carrying of such military appearing weapons as fundamental as the rights to vote, not suffer segregation, job and housing discrimination, etc. However, the right to vote, etc. is probably not seen in the same positive light as carrying an extremely dangerous weapon.
Two cases in point, the CA carrying of legal arms by the Black Panthers and the open carry pistol demonstrations led to bans on such. There was not an outcry of rights violation. Those actions were seem as fundamentally dangerous without competing good by many.
To the general public and a good part of the gun world, an AR with an 100 round mag in an airport suggests no good as compared to the good of ending discrimination.
Thus, the in your face argument ignores the dynamics of attitude analyses. Of course, if you are part of the gun world - you may not accept this. Many would prefer the uproar and even loss if it makes their point.
I don't recall using the word 'humiliating', if the gentleman would refrain from 'straw man' arguments, it would be appreciated. But, to answer your question no, the intent is not to humiliate law enforcement but to ensure that law enforcement is cognizant of the limitations of their authority. How would the gentleman make such assurance if not by test?Tom Servo said:They shut those meddlesome cops down, quick, fast and in a hurry.
So, the intent is humiliating cops? In the 1980's and 1990's there was a great deal of effort put into getting law enforcement on our side. A few things like this can erase that goodwill very quickly.
No BS arrests, unlike the first time Grisham did a legal walk with an AR (and I'll note Gresham was Not convicted of any firearm related crime).
No citations, no fines, no crime
Actually, Grisham was fined $2000 for interfering with the police.
My apologies if I was unclear, my words were referring to the gentlemen depicted not to the Grisham incident, although I will again note that Grisham was not convicted of any firearms offense although that is the obvious reason why he was detained. I'm fairly sure that had the officer not detained Grisham for what was ostensibly legal conduct he could not and would not have interfered with the officer. I'm of the mind that the charge was "By gawd, I'm gonna charge him wit' sumthin'! Ima gonna ruin his day one way or'tother."
Actually, upon going back and re-reading my post, it seems obvious that my words were deliberately misquoted. A gentleman should know better.
Last edited:
The fact that the Black Panthers were openly carrying is not what had the politicians in a tizzy. Their Black Panther Police Patrols is what had them in a lather. It does make a difference to the talking points.
PBS Story
And yes Tom, we could lose @ en-banc.....and SCOTUS COULD refuse the appeal...even though it goes directly to Heller in my uneducated opinion. But it still stands that closing the UOC loop hole blew a hole in the case in the first place. And a win at en-banc has far reaching implications. If a win @ en-banc...who is left w/ standing to appeal to SCOTUS?
PBS Story
And yes Tom, we could lose @ en-banc.....and SCOTUS COULD refuse the appeal...even though it goes directly to Heller in my uneducated opinion. But it still stands that closing the UOC loop hole blew a hole in the case in the first place. And a win at en-banc has far reaching implications. If a win @ en-banc...who is left w/ standing to appeal to SCOTUS?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I fail to see that point. The patrols had open displays of weapons has an integral part of their actions.
kilimanjaro
New member
We can talk about forcing the issue, like with civil rights, Selma, same-sex marriage, etc., etc., and how it will eventually work, but we have to realize one fundamental difference :
These are guns. Guns generate a visceral response in our population, and it doesn't matter what anyone says about it.
Want to split hairs about 'assault weapons'? Sorry, we lost that argument and will not ever win it. Never.
Think permits are an infringement of a unalienable right? I agree, but it doesn't matter, permits are here to stay and the restrictions on who gets them as well.
Cry and moan about the end of new NFA registrations? Tough beans, you're lucky they weren't all sent to the smelter in 1986. They will be if someone goes nuts with one.
Think private sales should be exempt from background checks? Put it to a vote and lose, every time.
Want to gut the open carry laws in your state? Just carry an assault rifle with a drum magazine around in public. Absolutely no one, not one person, is going to support that at the ballot box when it comes time to address the issue.
These are guns. Guns generate a visceral response in our population, and it doesn't matter what anyone says about it.
Want to split hairs about 'assault weapons'? Sorry, we lost that argument and will not ever win it. Never.
Think permits are an infringement of a unalienable right? I agree, but it doesn't matter, permits are here to stay and the restrictions on who gets them as well.
Cry and moan about the end of new NFA registrations? Tough beans, you're lucky they weren't all sent to the smelter in 1986. They will be if someone goes nuts with one.
Think private sales should be exempt from background checks? Put it to a vote and lose, every time.
Want to gut the open carry laws in your state? Just carry an assault rifle with a drum magazine around in public. Absolutely no one, not one person, is going to support that at the ballot box when it comes time to address the issue.
leadcounsel
Moderator
SHR970 said: He was not in the secure part of the airport!
I clearly said at the ENTRY POINT of a secured area.
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.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
Moderator
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.
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.I don't recall using the word 'humiliating', if the gentleman would refrain from 'straw man' arguments, it would be appreciated.
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.
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.
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.