By Craig

Aug 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

Why, Why, Why
Why does someone need a gun in the airport other than police person trying to keep us safe. Common Sense just does not seem to matter in our society today. I am ex military and past avid hunter but in order for the masses to be insured freedom we must have rules and laws to protect the masses from those that seek harm and disorder. Wake up America check your motive.

By David

Aug 2, 2008 5:35 PM | Link to this

Betty,

Sorry you don't get it. Legally carrying a weapon is nothing like you think. It is humbling and comes with a great feeling of burden. I hope to never draw my weapon but it is there because I want to level the playing field in the event that I am in the wrong place when some crazed person decides to take my life. I carry with a heavy feeling of responsibility. I make sure my permit is not readily visible if I open my wallet to get a credit card out. The point of carrying is not to be an enforcer. It is to go home alive in the event that some CRIMINAL attempts to do bad things in py presence. Not only did I go to the class required by the state but I shoot often for pure recreation. As hard as it might be to believe, my competition handgun isn't well suited for carrying and killing. It cost as much as a half dozen Glocks. It was built to put holes in cardboard targets and knock steel targets down. It's way too bulky to hide under clothes. It was made and purchased to compete in games. Wrap your liberal head around that!

By Chris

Jul 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

What in the world is wrong with you people who want guns in airports? Do you want to make them that much unsafer? I mean, come on. Right now, TSA or Police officer sees someone with a gun, they can assume it's a problem, and move carefully to resolve the situation, letting them go if it turns out they actually have a reason (i.e. plain-clothes police officer, Air Marshal, etc.). If you let people in the airports with guns, then they'll have leave them alone and hope it's just some paranoid fool who thinks they need to bring a gun to the airport terminal for their own "safety" until they actually do something wrong with it. Which would probably wind up with someone innocent dying or badly wounded, as whoever is using it certainly won't be using it to shoot a deer. Never mind the fact that the place is swarming with police (they certainly always appear whenever I'm waiting to pick someone up at the curb), TSA Security people, and other security personnell. Come On! It's unnerving enough when I fly to Europe and elsewhere that at least some of the security personell will have automatic weapons. But if this group of fools succeeds, I'll be afraid to go to the airport and do anything other than get through security as fast as possible, so I can get away from the paranoid nut-jobs who feel unsafe in a crowded, well-lit, well-policed airport terminal without carrying a loaded gun around with them.

As for your right to own and maybe carry a gun, what about my right to feel safe and not worry whether or not the person next to me is going to try and defend themselves and wind up shooting me because they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? Or my right to not worry about someone "defending" themselves with a 45-caliber pistol and have their "defense" go straight through whatever their shooting at and hit me, or some kid on their way to Disney World? Or my 9-year old sister?

By James Etheridge

Jul 14, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this

The gun law Purdue passed is one of the
wiser things he has done in his muddled
tenure. With crime growing more rampant
in Georgia with the rapid influx of illegal immigrants, and failure of the
Judges to enforce the law, one needs some
form of protection for himself and family.
Just this week I witnessed a theft from a
home, took a tag number, reported it, but
nothing has happened yet. As I stopped to
get the number I was nearly accosted by
the the thieves. I am a license carrier
and had a gun in my truck, but chose to
drive on avoid a bloody confrontation.
The thieves got into their vehicles and
left immediately after stepping out into
the road to see where I was going. The
situation would have been different had
I been approached by one of the thieves
and him armed and my life in jeopardy.

By BunLengthHotDog

Jul 6, 2008 7:38 PM | Link to this

Restaurant owners are allowed to ask those carrying in their establishment to leave. If the person asked to leave does not do so after the first request, he can be cited with criminal trespass. They will not be cited with anything gun related as it is no longer against the law to carry into restaurants serving alcohol.

It sounds fairly simple but there are some caveats...the biggest being posted signs. The media, ajc included, keeps posting that all property owners need to do is post a sign banning guns in their restaurant. This is simply not the case, posted signs have ZERO LEGAL WEIGHT in GA. A licensed GFL holder can walk right past a posted sign banning guns on the premises, they only have to leave if asked (which will likely come quickly if the person is carrying openly in a place that doesnt wish to have an openly armed patron). It is only state law that sets where its legal to carry, not posted signs. The opposite is a courthouse...the posted signs are a reminder, but its the state law banning carry in a govt building that matters, not the sign itself.

The other issue seems to fall on the issue of openly carrying vs concealed. GA law does not specify if one must carry concealed or open...so open is perfectly legal anywhere concealed would be. The media frequently gets this wrong as well, stating those with GFL's must carry concealed wherever they go, which is also not the case.

By EG

Jul 6, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

The new law allows licensed gun owners who pass background checks to carry concealed weapons on public transportation, in parks and recreation areas and in restaurants that serve alcohol ý all areas that were previously off-limits.

The story is unclear about what this means.

Does it mean that previously, you could not take a gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol no matter what, but now you can, as long as the owner allows it?

Or does it mean that restaurant owners, etc., are no longer allowed to restrict people from bringing guns into their establishments?

By BunLengthHotDog

Jul 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this

I am curious whether or not Shirley's security entourage was armed while she and DeCosta stood at the podium spouting their drivel. See, Franklin et all are elitists...the laws and interpretations thereof do not apply to their ilk, just us lowly peons who pay their salaries with the taxes we pay.

She knows what is best for us...put down those guns before you hurt yourselves my lowly subjects, and please pay no attention to the armed guards I have following me around Atlanta anywhere I go.

By cletus hungwell

Jul 5, 2008 12:17 AM | Link to this

there has been attempts to reduce violence through legislating controls of inanimate objects going back to the 1490's in france... england has had a more recent experiment with it, starting just as WW2 began....can anyone point me to data that shows actual results of restiction laws on objects has reduced violence????

are we to believe that no one on either side of this can produce scientific, peer reviewed data from 500yrs of evidence?????....

a preleminary review by myself has failed to show a single instance where increased .gov controls of non criminals ability to own inanimate objects reduces the violence commited by criminals.... ie: england had 3 murders with handguns in the 2yrs prior to them banning them in around '39.... the last 1st hand info i had from an english policeman was that they handle a shooting daily in just london..... how anyone can view this as a "sucess" is beyond me...

why would anyone willingly live in a society where people that weren't safe owning firearms, kitchen chemicals, lawn and garden chemicals, etc are allowed to walk loose among us???.... isn't the problem criminals????...i suggest you check the % of convicted felons in a population for a more realistic source of the problem of violence...

are we to believe these politicians that say the only only thing stopping you honest, productive citizens reading this from becoming a blood thursty murderer is the availability of certain inanimate objects???... shouldn't you be insulted by this??? they can say that without one single shred of data or evidence to back it it???? how dare they!!!!

cletus

By nobody

Jul 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this

Interesting comments pro and con, a lot of misinformed people on both sides. I do have a permit , and I was raised around guns and know how to safely use them, I do respect them , but not fear them. I have always carried a weapon when I thought I needed to for possible self dedense regardless of the law. A small fine is irrelavent when I feel my or my family safety is in question.I have lived here all my life and used to walk the streets of Atlanta as a kid with no fear, but unfortunately that is not the case today. Mayor Franklin, you're out of touch. Make the streets of Atlanta safe and guarantee my safety anywhere I care to go in the city and I promise I'll leave my gun at home.

By RoyB

Jul 4, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

"Harry" said:


EXCELLENT reference, sir!