Man carrying AR-15 thru ATL airport claims harassment (Atlanta: theatre, legal)

[JPD]

So, I can hang out at the airport all day, every day with as many assault weapons as my body can physically carry, but I can't wait in my car at the curb by baggage claim for 30 seconds waiting to pick up my wife.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by Boris347

There is no evidence or written works that "Well Regulated Militia" meant "Well Regulated Arms." If there is, be sure to point them out for us. Don't you think folks back then knew the difference between a person and a gun? There are also no "standards" for a weapon a Militia member may or may not use, since most brought what they had, and there was no law governing what they can or can not have. What would you regulate? A " Flintlock Musket" that comes in 30, 40, or 69 caliber?

A "Regulated Militia is one that falls under Military Regulations in time of War. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, the Common Attitude was that anyone could own a weapon, since anything contrary to that would have been recorded as such.

Of course the Founding fathers had input on Militias. They served under Military rule when needed.

To even suggest that there where "Gun Laws" to limit what a private owner could have, and how much ammo he could have is ludicrous. What they did have was standards for organization and discipline.

Not that I am purposely sidestepping your response(which yeah, maybe I am), but for time and sanity's sake, just see my response to your buddy MattCW.

I can only deal with one open-carry person at a time.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by MattCW

It'd be better without a lot of people coming down here trying to change things.

You didn't think that one through.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Some folks may not agree but who doesn't feel safer knowing that their fellow citizens are prepared to tackle any potential danger?

Well I, for one, don't feel safer at the idea that anyone who wants to can carry simply by passing a background check. No training, no testing, no learning...just pay a fee, pass the background check, carry gun. There's nothing "safer" about that. I might feel safer with someone who is highly trained and very competent with their weapon, carrying and ready to respond. But your average bubba is not that guy, no matter how much you and the other 2nd champions believe so.

First example: my mom. No criminal history, no mental issues. The thought of her carrying a gun would scare the living bejeezus out of me. I guaran-freaking-tee you that someone would be dead within six months.

Yet, somehow, that makes you feel safer?

[tikigod311]

Considering there's nothing to actively stop anyone from carrying guns around without a license, what does it matter. Gun free zones are a total joke without having to pass some sort of active security.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by OuiOui

I read the article. Didn't see where it said he was arrested.

Also, to quote the story:
"And while city officials have in the past expressed dismay over the fact that citizens are permitted to carry weapons in the open and public areas of the airport, it is, indeed, perfectly legal for citizens to walk through the airport with their weapons displayed in view, provided they do not move into the TSA-controlled secure areas of the airport property.

Trust me, I don't think this is cool at all, but if something is within the law then you kinda just have to respect it, right? Even if you don't personally agree.

Would the TSA folks even notice?

[cqholt]

Watched the video, the guy goes looking for a confrontation with APD, but the officers are calm, give him their info and explain the situation.

[PKCorey]

Originally Posted by JPD

So, I can hang out at the airport all day, every day with as many assault weapons as my body can physically carry, but I can't wait in my car at the curb by baggage claim for 30 seconds waiting to pick up my wife.

Keep it moving...

[MattCW]

What I find hilarious is you irrationally fearful folks are so afraid of seeing a gun, that you aren't afraid that someone who does intend to do harm will keep their weapon in their luggage until they find a quiet corner to pull it out and strike without warning. I'm seriously surprised someone here hasn't proposed a tsa-style grope-down at the exit from everyone's house yet (yes, I've seen that proposed seriously elsewhere)

Hopefully the APD will learn from this mistake and make better decisions next time.

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Given that there hasn't been too much change in how the term/phrase "well regulated" has been defined since 1776...I'm afraid I shall have to not take you up on your suggestion.

Ok, I'm sorry, it seems English isn't your first language which is fine, I don't have any problem with that so I'll help you out a bit and illustrate the issue. What I was talking about was the entire first half of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The way the English language is, was, and will probably forever be structured, the bolded part means nothing. The bolded part is a "subordinate clause" which means that it simply provides extra information without altering the meaning of the sentence. That part could read "because gunz are kewl" or "An armed populace, being necessary to protect themselves and others" or be left off altogether without changing anything. Perhaps after you've spent some more time with our language you'll come to understand how proper sentences are structured and why they mean what they mean.

I am pretty satisfied with my interpretation of well-regulated.

Which is wrong, but that's ok, maybe after some more research, you'll begin to understand.


See, I was trying avoid bringing the interpretations of partisans with their own biases into the mix.

But since some of us want to get in the game of listing websites of anonymous people with their own political biases on the 2nd amendment/well-regulated issue.... I might as well match you one for one, right? Read and enjoy.


http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ly-did-it-mean[/quote]
As I pointed out above, the meaning of the first part doesn't matter so you can derive whatever definition of "well regulated" you like, it still changes nothing.

You mean like the NRA and the gun lobbyists at the Gold Dome? You are sooooo right about that one.

Nope, they're just trying to fix things.

Originally Posted by JPD

You didn't think that one through.

Let's see, northern transplants move in, then try and force their irrational hoplophobia on the rest of us...nope, thought it through all the way.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by MattCW

The way the English language is, was, and will probably forever be structured, the bolded part means nothing. The bolded part is a "subordinate clause" which means that it simply provides extra information without altering the meaning of the sentence. That part could read "because gunz are kewl" or "An armed populace, being necessary to protect themselves and others" or be left off altogether without changing anything. Perhaps after you've spent some more time with our language you'll come to understand how proper sentences are structured and why they mean what they mean.

That doesn't mean nothing. It provides information. It provides intent, which is pretty important in law. If anything it is telling that the Constitution framers go out of their way to provide intent, because they understand how important that clarification is and the potential for abuse.


The right to bear arms is for a well regulated militia, not some nut-job walking around the airport trying to get a stir out of people.


You should be really careful arguing in a cocky tone like that, because I think you might want to take your own advice on understanding the English language... and legal interpretation for that matter.