Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« More on the raid on the mayor in MD | Main | I guess John Edwards is off the short list for VP »

TSA contemplates banning guns at airports entirely

Posted by David Hardy · 8 August 2008 12:29 PM

Snowflakes in Hell discusses it. The story is a bit ambiguous: it says TSA is considering "authorizing" airports to ban from everywhere, including parking lots.

Note that the request for the action comes from the Atlanta airport, which is facing lawsuits over its rule to that effect, which reportedly conflicts with Georgia's pre-emption statute. It's a good bet that the idea is that if TSA authorizes the airport to ban (and if TSA in turn has been given authority to do so by Congress, then that would override State pre-emption, under the Supremacy Clause. So essentially this is all over one airport.

12 Comments | Leave a comment

Steve Wright | August 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply

Aaaaargh.

These idiots just don't get it. I've never actually carried in the airport as I'm usually flying out, and in any case there are a lot of cops around and I'd just as soon not run afoul of the somewhat anti-gun Denver Police.

But it is nice to have my gun in the car. Especially if I'm picking someone up late at night and/or have some errands to run. If there have been no problems, why make new rules?

Makes me crazy.

Guaranteed DIA will become a gun-free zone if the TSA rule allows Denver to overcome state pre-emption.

Ken | August 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply

They seem to be attempting to remedy the problem of airport congestion and the shortage of air traffic controllers by making it so onerous that only those with absolutely no other option would dare go anywhere near a major airport, much less fly. I used to fly several dozen times each year; over the past couple of years I've stopped almost entirely. It's not out of any fear of terrorism, but out of disgust at the airlines' continued abuse of their paying customers and the absurd security theater performances by TSA flunkies trained on old Conrad Veidt and Erich von Stroheim movies.

Jim W | August 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply

I fly at most once a year. I traveled by car to my summer internship (FL to DC) and by car to the federalist society conference this summer.

I agree that the post 9/11 handling of airport security has made traveling by air a complete pain in the ass. I don't think anyone would mind if it actually made us safer (like the israeli security program) but it is very clearly just a show.

ATL | August 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply

I would rather stay home. The TSA move will not happen. Congress does not want to get near this issue. Here is a great reason to call your congressman!

It should show how absurd Atlanta's political machine has gotten from Georgia Carry's constant court room ass-whippings!

LOL!

Steve Wright | August 8, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply

I fly about 14 ties a year ... I used to fly 35 times a year (just about every working week).

I think TSA was a horrible mistake to create. The old system of rentacops was horrendous, paying people low with no benefits and ensuring constant turnover, but all they really had to do was change standards for contractors so they would pay enough to get and keep good people. They should have fixed the old system insetad of creating a new Federal dept.

Tom | August 8, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply

Driving, The other commuting alternative!

James Cochrane | August 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply

They can try. The problem is that Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport is owned/operated by the City of Atlanta, which as a political subdivision of the State of Georgia is barred by state law from creating any laws about firearm's possession that are stricter than those passed by the General Assembly of Georgia. It doesn't matter what TSA allows the airports to do, the City of Atlanta Department of Aviation is still bound by state law. The state COULD decide that the Atlanta airport is being mismanaged by the city of Atlanta (which it has been for years) and place it under control of a state authority.

Bill Wiese | August 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply

I travel with firearms with moderate frequency (once or twice a year), including CA-defined 'registered assault weapons'.

I never have trouble with TSA in SFO, San Jose or in the Pacific Northwest destinations to which I visit.

Usually it takes less that 5 min extra to deal with situation, and every once in awhile one of the female agents is a bit surprised or asks to inspect my guns (when the airline's rules don't require it).

I honestly don't think TSA wants to open this ball of worms.

Far worse would be multi-airline-wide refusal to convey firearms. (But, then, airlines have been continuously proving they know how to alienate customers for the last decade.)


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA


htom | August 9, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply

There are executive charter services that don't involve using the TSA secured terminals. Much more expensive than business -- or first -- class, but if you can afford it, recommended.

Jim D. | August 9, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply

I had a fun conversation with an Anti who was a private pilot on whether or not I could legally carry concealed while flying with him.

Needless to say, I'll never have that chance now...

RKM | August 10, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply

Here is a shot over TSA's (and Smith's) bow from Oregon:

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/08.10.08alert.html

bud | August 11, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply

The fine print on the "Supremacy Clause" is the line about "in pursuance of". If the law in question does not conform with the powers granted, it is NOT "supreme", which is why left-leaning courts have stretched the Commerce clause to a paper-thin umbrella.

Regulating what is in a parking lot of an airport is related to "interstate commerce"?? By any rational persons lights, no, but were dealing with lawyers here.

Leave a comment