• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cooley's AR-15 Airport OC Leads to Fed Bill to Ban BOTH OC and CC at Airports

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
What did I say last year about how carrying throughout the normal course of your day is fine, but in-your-face antics will most certainly backfire?

"As a direct result of Cooley’s stunt, Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson has now proposed a federal law to ban both open and concealed carry in airports."

Please grow a brain and be sensible before you ruin any more hard-won advances for the rest of us.

And if you see someone just being stupid, tell 'em! Say, "Hey! Dumb***! Knock it off!"

I'm serious, folks. If we refuse to police our own, the antis will be glad to dive in and police all of us "just because."

Carry on, but please be smart about it.

Thanks.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The bill was proposed by Hank Johnson... do you have any idea who Hank Johnson is and how well respected he is in Congress? No?

[video=youtube;cesSRfXqS1Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q[/video]

He's afraid that if there are too many people on Guam.... that the island will tip over and capsize.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The problem is that even though it is Hank Johnson (yes, that Hank Johnson) there are enough anti-gun folks in Congress that this could grow some legs - mostly because folks are going to fight it as a RKBA/2A issue instead of fighting it as a civil rights issue. The recent church shooting in SC, depending on timing, can act like gasoline thrown on the fire.

stay safe.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
yes the Charleston church thing is definitely bad timing, although I have to say.. if any of them where armed, some of them, or all of them might have survived.. but you know, pray at a victim zone..
 

Bernymac

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
415
Location
Las Vegas
Yes those "in your face" antics are the reason why we get stricter gun control laws...keep exercising those rights and it will be taken...:shocker::banghead::eek::dude:

It didn't work in Texas, it didn't work for the LGBT community and it will not work here! :cuss:
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
When exercising a right causes that right to be taken away the statists have won.

Pretty stupid to OC a long gun at an airport, however. Would have been much more effective to have a properly holstered pistol.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Yes those "in your face" antics are the reason why we get stricter gun control laws...keep exercising those rights and it will be taken...:shocker::banghead::eek::dude:

It didn't work in Texas, it didn't work for the LGBT community and it will not work here! :cuss:

That line might work if GA did not already have OC (like was until recently the case in Texas).

"In your face" tactics are good for making a point. However, this guy was not making a point - he has admitted he was doing so to "protect" his family. If he thought there might be trouble a handgun would be easier to maneuver around an airport with. If he suspected there might be trouble going to the airport might not have been a good idea in the first place. If he anticipated trouble he should have either brought all his guns and all his friends with all their guns, or just stayed away.

If you want to make the point that OCing is legal to a bunch of folks who might not be aware of that, why not wear a sign saying OC is legal and cite the law?

16-11-130.2. Airports
(a) No person shall enter the restricted access area of a commercial service airport, in or beyond the airport security screening checkpoint, knowingly possessing or knowingly having under his or her control a weapon or long gun. Such area shall not include an airport drive, general parking area, walkway, or shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoint and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating
that weapons are prohibited in such area.
(b) A person who is not a license holder and who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor. A license holder who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided, however, that a license holder who is notified at the screening checkpoint for the restricted access area that he or she is in possession of a weapon or long gun and who immediately leaves the restricted access area following such notification and completion of federally required transportation security screening procedures shall not be guilty of violating this Code section.

The whole thing can fit on a 28" x 22" posterboard that can be pinned to the back of your shirt/jacket. Delete Section (b) and you can make the letters bigger. Sort of like a gay pride parade without the a$$less chaps over only a bit of buttfloss.

stay safe.
 

Bernymac

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
415
Location
Las Vegas
Do the anti-gunners really need a reason? From my observation, they will use any and all logical fallacies at their disposal to get their way.
For the children; it scares other folk; common sense; you don't need a gun in such and such place; you are an idiot; you are black; you are a Jew; you are an inbred, single-toothed, ugly, smelly hick; etc...

And if they can find a way to point a finger at a citizen who chooses to exercise their right in an "in your face" manner and turn other citizens against them, the better. Have everyone call each other names and make them believe they need to "police" each other. This thread makes a great example.

Polarize the opposition and you will cleave them and have fight them amongst each other. Easier to pick them off when divided.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
If you want to do in-your-face for the sake of in-your-face be prepared for the long road it may take you to get back to where you were when you started.

I've done in-your-face when it was starting from ground zero. There was really nothing to lose and any gain was just that - a gain.

I've seen folks do in-your-face when there was as much or more to lose as to gain. Nature and society do not favor increases.

I understand that you say it is a right that "shall not be infringed". Sadly, the truth is that the right has already been infringed. I wish it were not so, but it is. I honestly cannot think of any right in the BoR that has not been infringed and the odds of getting back to the starting point are so small as to be meaningless.

If you can explain to me how a long gun is better than a handgun for carrying around in case you need a firearm for defense of self/family/innocent others (not specific scenarios but just "just in case") I'll rethink my position and give strong consideration to supporting your viewpoint.

stay safe.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"In your face" tactics are good for making a point. However, this guy was not making a point - he has admitted he was doing so to "protect" his family.

If he thought there might be trouble a handgun would be easier to maneuver around an airport with. If he suspected there might be trouble going to the airport might not have been a good idea in the first place.

What one says for consumption by the press is not always what one is truly doing. Honestly, I don't blame him, "I'm just down here picking up family" reads better than "I'm participating in unpopular but protected political speech to make a point about how firearms are perceived when carried by the general public versus how they are viewed when carried by those who we allow to be our lords."


I don't know about you but I carry a pistol because I don't anticipate trouble. If I did anticipate trouble, I'd follow the example of the military and the police and carry a long gun, a rifle or shotgun. Airports aren't any harder to maneuver around in than any other wide open area and a darn sight easier to maneuver in than a narrow office building hallway or average home. One might note that one of the nice officers the gentleman met was packing a long gun.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
I don't think any of us want to turn this country into a place where we need to carry rifles around while dong our daily routines. I say let's not "fake it til we make it".
Sometimes it is best to **** and not make everything a struggle. I have been concerned that OCT long gun events would result in new laws where none currently exist. Texas has zero regulation of long gun carry, but it would take very little to change that into something like "only when in transit to or actively involved in a hunting or sporting activity."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
There are several opportunistic politicians and know-nothing stooges with boilerplate proposals ready in hand to further infringe upon the RKBA at a moment's notice - it's their M.O.

Providing them excuses to introduce infringements again and again should not be equated with giving them reasons. They aren't waiting around for reasons, the fact that we still have any portions of our rights left intact is reason enough for them.

...If you can explain to me how a long gun is better than a handgun for carrying around in case you need a firearm for defense of self/family/innocent others (not specific scenarios but just "just in case") I'll rethink my position and give strong consideration to supporting your viewpoint.

stay safe.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, it may well be considered "better" by many to just pay the fee and jump through whatever hoops are required to obtain permission via license to lawfully carry a handgun than to carry any other type firearm for which state permission is not required.

When one takes a principled look at the situation, however, one may not conclude that it is "better" at all. In fact, they may determine that contesting the mere practicality of this man's choice misses what might be considered the primary point completely.

stay principled.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Drama and fancy foot work is seldom needed/desired to accomplish these goals AND perception is a big part of public's reaction.

Not saying what he did was wrong - just don't see any positive benefit and it provides talking points for the antis.
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
Drama and fancy foot work is seldom needed/desired to accomplish these goals AND perception is a big part of public's reaction.

Not saying what he did was wrong - just don't see any positive benefit and it provides talking points for the antis.

It provides talking points for pro RKBA folks, too.

For instance, most states obviously prefer that their residents carry long guns. Their next preference would be open carry of handguns. What they seem to prefer least is concealed handgun carry. Restrictions are typically used to steer choices toward the unrestricted.

This guy carried in the preferred GA manner.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Yes those "in your face" antics are the reason why we get stricter gun control laws...keep exercising those rights and it will be taken...:shocker::banghead::eek::dude:

It didn't work in Texas, it didn't work for the LGBT community and it will not work here! :cuss:

+1
 
Top