An editorial in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

... However, in this post-terrorism environment, there are already plenty of guns at the airport, and they're being carried by trained law enforcement officers charged with keeping the public safe. Among the agencies safeguarding Hartsfield are the Airport Security Division, the Transportation Security Administration, the Atlanta Police Department, FBI and federal air marshals.

Airport General Manager Ben DeCosta fears airport safety would be compromised if trained law enforcement professionals were forced to assume that all civilians are carrying concealed firearms. As he also points out, the accidental discharge of a firearm in a terminal or parking lot could create a panic similar to what happened seven years ago when a traveler breached security checkpoints to retrieve a camera left at the checkpoint. The airport shut down, between 5,000 and 10,000 people were evacuated and Delta and other airlines lost millions of dollars.

The ban on guns at airports also makes legal sense.

When the U.S. Supreme Court last month affirmed the constitutional right to have guns for self-defense in the home, it took special care to stipulate that guns could be still be banned in "sensitive places." Certainly, the world's busiest airport qualifies as a sensitive place.

[more]

It is important to remember that Hartsfield-Jackson Airport has had problems keeping guns off of airplanes since 9/11, let alone keeping them out of the terminals.

It is also important to note that simply being a concealed carry permit-holder is no guarantee that someone is a "law-abiding gun owner" - or even that they're competent to own a weapon.

Since May 29, NewsWatch has collected some 25 incidents of accidents, crimes and other misdeeds by concealed carry permit-holders (including attempts to carry weapons through airport security).

Many have resulted in death.

And these are just the incidents reported and found in common news searches. Many others surely go undetected.

Confirmed details on this event have been developing slowly for almost two weeks, since George R. Harrison - a Utah concealed carry permit-holder - allegedly shot and killed Mike James Mays in front of a Salt Lake City restaurant.

In the days that followed, the Salt Lake Tribune has been host to news reports and commentary asking hard questions about the shooting, and whether Mr. Harrison was right to shoot and kill Mr. Mays.

The shooting reportedly took place on July 9. This report is from the Tribune on July 11:

Mike James Mays died a violent death Wednesday, but friends and relatives said he did not lead a violent life.

Meanwhile, police confirmed Mays, 47, was unarmed when he was shot during an altercation outside a Salt Lake City restaurant.

"He's had some trouble through life . . . but he was never violent. He was always a gentle, kind man," his son Mike Workman, 24, said. "Just the thought of my dad laying dead in the middle of the intersection just tore at my heart. I can't believe this is actually happening."

Mays, of Salt Lake City, was shot by George R. Harrison, 59, at Mama's Southern Plantation restaurant, police say. Harrison holds a concealed-weapon permit and works security there part time, but was not on duty. Harrison couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

[more]

On July 13, Tribune columnist Rebecca Walsh made some pointed observations:

... The street fight between Harrison and Mays goes to the heart of our notions of a "reasonable" right to self-defense. Police shifted a good chunk of the blame to the dead man; he "contributed to the confrontation that ultimately led to his death." They tiptoed around the concealed-weapon carrier/Vietnam vet who killed him, questioning and releasing him the same afternoon; he was "very cooperative."

How the case is handled is a matter of public policy and social conscience. Is starting an argument enough to get you killed on the streets of Salt Lake City now? Are concealed-weapon holders going to join the rarified ranks of the police - the only people we give a license to shoot-to-kill outside the battlefield and our own homes?

This will come down to an interpretation of Utah law, which does not require a person to retreat if feeling threatened.

[more]

Finally, a couple of letter-writers to the Tribune have weighed in in recent days, asking their own set of tough questions about concealed carry in Utah.

This from Steve Wynn, on July 16:

... The defense in this killing is that Harrison was scared. Technically, he felt "threatened." That's a defense for killing someone? Harrison should not be allowed to carry a gun in the future. He's obviously not mature enough to handle it. And charges should certainly be filed.

[more]

And this from Kathryn Fitzgerald on July 18:

... Is this what a concealed-carry permit has come to? A license to kill, at any location, in any circumstance where a "law-abiding" citizen with a concealed-carry permit happens to feel somewhat threatened? Gun advocates claim that people with concealed-weapon permits make us all safer.

Mike Mays, recent victim of a "law-abiding" citizen, was not safer. I do not feel safer.

[more]

NewsWatch will follow the conversation in Salt Lake City as events develop.

It seems that whenever a representative of the NRA is asked whether their organization still supports the virtual machine gun ban in America, they figure out a way to dodge the question.

Until today's report in the Mobile Press-Register:

... While Alabamians support gun ownership, they do think there should be some restrictions in certain cases. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed said felons who have paid their debt to society should not have a right to own a gun while 77 percent said they favor prohibiting ownership of fully automatic weapons.

...

The NRA's [spokeswoman Rachel] Parsons signaled disagreement with respondents who believe that people should be barred from keeping machine guns and fully automatic weapons in their homes.

Anyone wanting to own such a weapon faces a lengthy and demanding review process, including several background checks, Parsons said, adding that legally owned fully automatic firearms result in little or no crime.

"The NRA stands firmly by the notion that law-abiding citizens are not the problem," she said.

[more]

Aside from committing a Kinsley Gaffe about the NRA's position on the Federal machine gun ban - putting that organization at odds with almost 80% of Alabamians, not to mention the rest of America - Ms. Parsons also helped make the case for the law's effectiveness.

Almost certainly, a key reason why few machine guns are used in crime is because they have been heavily regulated since 1934, with new such weapons banned from manufacture since 1986.

As the news shows every week, just because someone hasn't broken a law doesn't mean they should get a gun - especially not a machine gun.

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]

NewsWatch asked this back on July 4th.

Florida citizen Stanley Eskin asks that question and others in a letter to the Orlando Sentinel today:

Re "Drivers' quarrel leads to deadly shooting" (July 4): Now that the law is on the books, that a person can keep a gun in his car while the car is parked on his workplace lot, I wonder how many more unfortunate deadly shootings we'll be reading about in the future?

I ask this after reading about Thomas Thompson shooting and killing David Figueroa over a "mere scratch" on one of the cars' bumpers.

However, another very important question is how Thompson, who has a "valid concealed weapons permit," was able to obtain that permit, let alone being able to even own a gun, when he was sentenced to a year's probation and fined on cocaine possession charges in 1999 and then received the same sentence on the same charges in 2001?

How many similar situations will we be reading about when people out there with as much hidden rage as Thompson do the same thing at any given moment?

All of these are great questions the lawmakers in Tallahassee should have to answer.

Foremost among them: Is the drug-using Mr. Thompson the type of "law-abiding gun owner" the Florida legislature wants walking around with a permit to carry a loaded, concealed handgun?

Should he even be allowed to buy a weapon in the first place?

Florida's new guns-at-work law lets concealed carry permit-holders like Thompson take their guns to work whether their employer likes it or not.

Thankfully, Walt Disney World, Georgia Pacific, Universal Studios, and the Jacksonville Electric Authority have found exceptions in the law they believe will let them maintain their "no guns" policies, to help keep their staff and property safe.