The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote an editorial today about Monday's common-sense Federal court decision to keep guns out of Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport:

... In his decision, [Judge] Shoob cut through the pro-gun rhetoric and sided with public safety: "Where there is any question as to whether the public safety and welfare is threatened, the court must rule on the side of that public interest." GeorgiaCarry.org claims Atlanta's ban violates a new state law that allows Georgians with concealed weapons permits to bring weapons to state parks, restaurants that serve alcohol and on public transportation. GeorgiaCarry.org contends that non-secure areas of the airport, including terminals, parking lots and baggage claim, qualify as public transportation. Atlanta disagrees that the airport was covered by the law.

Shoob could have granted a preliminary injunction to GeorgiaCarry.org only if he decided that the group had "a substantial likelihood" of winning once the full case is heard and decided. But as Shoob noted, it's a stretch to define an international airport as public transportation. (An airplane is a means of transportation; an airport is not.)

Shoob treated other arguments offered by GeorgiaCarry.org with equal skepticism, especially its insistence that concealed permit holders are vetted carefully by the state and pose no risk to Hartsfield's 90 million annual passengers.

As Shoob noted, "The only requirements to obtain a firearms license in Georgia are to pay a $15 fee and undergo a criminal background check and, at the discretion of the probate court, a mental health background check. There is no requirement that applicants demonstrate any proficiency in the handling of a firearm."

[more]

Brady President Paul Helmke also issued a statement applauding the decision, available here.

The winner of last month's landmark Supreme Court decision is back in court.

According to the Washington Post:

... Without commenting on Heller's latest lawsuit, D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said the new gun-registration law was enacted as emergency legislation shortly after the Supreme Court decision. He said the District will probably change the rules in coming months. "The council's action in introducing emergency legislation . . . was meant to be a quick response," said Mendelson, chairman of the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. "It was not meant to be a comprehensive response."

The committee has scheduled a Sept. 18 hearing to discuss possible changes to the registration rules.

[more]

Posted by the AP a couple of hours ago:

... People on both sides of the gun control issue say they expect numerous attacks against local, state and federal laws based on the high court's 5-4 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested, however, that many gun control measures could remain in place.

Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Scalia essentially was reassuring people that the laws keeping guns from felons and people with mental illness and out of government buildings and schools would withstand challenges. But Henigan said he is not surprised by felons pressing for gun-ownership rights.

"The court has cast us into uncharted waters here. There is no question about that," Henigan said.

"There is now uncertainty where there was none before," he said. "Gun laws were routinely upheld and they were considered policy issues to be decided by legislatures."

[more]

More recognition of the key salutary effect of the Heller decision on the gun violence prevention movement.

From Janet Pearson in the Tulsa World:

... What's next? Does the court's ruling mean gun controls are a thing of the past?

Hardly. Even nonlawyers would conclude after reading the Heller decision that, if anything, it enthusiastically embraces and endorses reasonable controls.

"All regulations that touch upon Second Amendment rights will get a well-deserved constitutional look. Instant background checks and felon-in-possession laws will survive. Laws meant to harass gun possession, while at best advancing only a hypothetical public benefit, will not," said Alan Gura, one of the attorneys who argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court, on reasononline.

There is general agreement that in addition to measures banning ownership by potentially dangerous people, laws governing licensing, commercial sales and probably concealed-carry measures likely will survive. That will be welcome news to many residents of the 40 states that have enacted concealed-carry laws.

Even the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence found a silver lining to Heller, noting that the "decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center, said Heller means the gun lobby's "slippery slope" argument — that gun-control measures will eventually lead to an all-out ownership ban — is now moot.

Helmke added that "lifesaving proposals" such as background checks, limits on bulk sales and measures targeting corrupt dealers "can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology."

[more]

In the Washington Post:

District residents will be able to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense but that right would be limited to the home and not outside it, city leaders said today, announcing new gun regulations in response to the Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the city's handgun ban.

Gun owners will have to pass vision and written tests, provide a photo with their application to register a gun, and submit their weapon for ballistics testing. Guns will also still require trigger locks.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles announced the regulations alongside D.C. Council Chairman Vincent G. Gray (D), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and several other council members.

The regulations are an effort to maintain some gun control while complying with the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 ruling last month.

"We think we have struck the delicate legal balance," Fenty said. "While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground."

In a news release announcing the restrictions, Fenty said: "We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District. We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused."

[more]

See also Mike Debonis' City Desk blog at the Washington City Paper:

... As to where you can load that gun, given a “reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm,� it’s only in your home. Not your yard. Not your car, which might be parked in front of your home, but in your home. Now, as for the use of the gun once it’s loaded, the statute will say nothing about that; use of a weapon in self-defense is governed by reams of case law, Nickles says.

The District’s proposed standard is likely to attract additional legal scrutiny from folks who feel that the policy in not in full compliance with the Heller decision, but Nickles says it was drafted to comply fully with the holding. “When you do almost anything in this city, you get a lawsuit,� he said.

[more]