In many US airports, guns are OK outside security

[iratollah]

I've heard, anecdotally, about people being arrested in the baggage area at Hobby airport for carrying concealed. Guess they didn't do a good job of concealing. I don't care to be a test case for the law so I do not carry in the unsecured area. Flying with firearms has been a mixed experience; Southwest Airlines was hassle free and Continental acted like it was the first time anyone had ever shown up at check-in with a rifle.

There was a very interesting point in the article and something I wonder about, especially about carrying in church and the like. If as a CHL I'm ever in the situation of having to draw down on a bad guy, how do the arriving security folks know which one of us is the good guy?

[GrillKing]

I think a lot of times these emphatic "no guns allowed" statements in spite of state law allowing concealed carry at the affected location are more bark than bite. And I am also convinced that a person would beat the rap if they are in fact a bite. But, I believe they would be out many thousands of $$$ to beat that rap.

I would err on the side of caution where it has been stated that an arrest would be made and lock the gun up before entering, even if I am in the right . They may "ask" you to leave or they may "escort" you on your trip. You don't know. If there were some evidence (arrests actually made or reports of CHL holders asked to leave, etc.), I might change my risk level. I do, however, routinely ignore the ghostbuster style signage and similar ....

[anygunanywhere]

There are no 30.06 at either airport from what I have seen. There are pseudo-gunbusters at GBIA. I have carried in the non-secure areas of both airports.

What is the big deal?

Once, at Hobby I dropped my mother off for a flight. The ticket counter supv told me I could escort Mom to the gate. I told her that I couldn't. She said yes, I can. I said No, I can't! She looked at me, grinned, and said "I understand".

I agree that if being armed was such a big deal then flying with firearms would be verbotten.

Concealed means concealed, or have we all forgotten?

Anygunanywhere

[FlynJay]

The last time I was at Houston Intercontinental Airport (Bush), there were no 30.06 signs. As noted, it's government property and 30.06 signs are not enforceable.

Chas.

True, it is not suppose to be enforceable, but the spokesperson implied they have and do enforce it. Whether that's 30.05 or 30.06, I don't know, but it was clear that they will enforce their "no guns ordinance". Has anyone actually been arrested while legally carrying concealed at GBIA?

If someone was arrested for legally carring at GBIA then I would say they have a legimate false arrest claim and we would have heard about that; 30.06 does not apply to "property owned or leased by a government entity" and having a CHL is a defense to 30.05. Somebody may have gotten arrested for disorderly conduct or something, but most likely not carrying.

[GrillKing]

Concealed means concealed, or have we all forgotten?

Anygunanywhere

No we haven't forgotten.

But, if it is stated that you will be arrested, regardless of what the law says, some may CHOOSE to not carry. Concealed is concealed, 99.9% of the time. But what about that gust of wind, or you bend over exposing your gun, or someone bumps into you or..... anything that would be OK in a zone where you know you won't be arrested.

It's risk vs reward, and we all have different thresholds. You appear to CHOOSE differently than me. That doesn't make me wrong (or you right). I do what's best for me and my family. I assume you do the same for you and yours.

I believe, that if it is true that they would arrest you at GBIA if detected with a concealed handgun, the risk of that happening is far greater than the risk of not having your gun if needed. That is what I would base my choice on as to whether to carry at that facility or not.

[anygunanywhere]

Concealed means concealed, or have we all forgotten?

Anygunanywhere

No we haven't forgotten.

But, if it is stated that you will be arrested, regardless of what the law says, some may CHOOSE to not carry. Concealed is concealed, 99.9% of the time. But what about that gust of wind, or you bend over exposing your gun, or someone bumps into you or..... anything that would be OK in a zone where you know you won't be arrested.

It's risk vs reward, and we all have different thresholds. You appear to CHOOSE differently than me. That doesn't make me wrong (or you right). I do what's best for me and my family. I assume you do the same for you and yours.

I believe, that if it is true that they would arrest you at GBIA if detected with a concealed handgun, the risk of that happening is far greater than the risk of not having your gun if needed. That is what I would base my choice on as to whether to carry at that facility or not.

Your logic can be applied anywhere there is a perceived threat or rumor that you will be arrested for carrying legally. The same threat of arrest exists anywhere when unenforceable signs are posted. If I were to disarm everywhere a perceived "intent" exists I would seldom carry. The number of off limits places defined by the law where licensed individuals are exempt can be included in the "intent" column since many uneducated individuals assume that carry is forbidden. Proof of this is the consistent number of "I thought churches were off limits" posts on this forum.

I understand your stance, although I disagree that you are doing what is right for yourself and your family if you decide to disarm when there is a perception of intent.

Anygunanywhere

[GrillKing]

Your logic can be applied anywhere there is a perceived threat or rumor that you will be arrested for carrying legally. The same threat of arrest exists anywhere when unenforceable signs are posted.

Not necessarily true. I routinely ignore non-compliant signs, i.e., ghostbuster. The differenece is at GBIA, people with the POWER to arrest you have said they WILL do so. Enforceable or not, they said they will, and if they do, it doesn't matter what you or I think, if it is enforcible or not, you are going for a ride. The chances are high that will occur if you are detected carrying at GBIA.

In the case of crossing the typical non-compliant sign at almost any other location, if detected, the chances of taking a ride are low, as most jurisdictions choose, in contrast to the airport authority at GBIA, to enforce the law, and not their own conflicting opinion.

My decisions are not based on perception of intent, but on perception of the consequence, two different things. By your logic, you would pass one of the many (as listed in this forum) unenforcible 30.06 signs at a government building with a metal detector where, wrongly, you would be arrested if you pass the detector. Is that so? You would go through an entrance with a 100% chance of detection and arrest, even though you are legally entitled to do so? This is the scenario I describe, not intent, but consequence and degree of probability of being caught resulting in sure arrest because the specific people with the power to arrest you have said they will do so.

BTW, I know you disagree, but I do what's best for my family.

[GrillKing]

The number of off limits places defined by the law where licensed individuals are exempt can be included in the "intent" column since many uneducated individuals assume that carry is forbidden. Proof of this is the consistent number of "I thought churches were off limits" posts on this forum.

Anygunanywhere

I don't believe this isn't relevent to the discussion. I understand the law. I would choose to not carry at GBIA because of the explicit threat of arrest, even though the arrest would not be valid, not because I don't understand the law.

BTW, I do carry at church and anywhere else lawfully allowed, and will continue to do so except for a very few places like GBIA. This is actually an academic exercise as I have never been to GBIA other than as a passenger transfer and have never actually chosen to not carry anywhere lawfully allowed as a result of actions like those expressed at GBIA. I would probably not carry at GBIA, but have never yet been faced with that decision in 3 1/2 years as a licensee.

[stevie_d_64]

The media flooped this little tidbit out there a couple of days ago, and the way it was presented, further illustrates the continued battle we will always have on hand from those that wish to push back the envelope of infringement based solely upon emotion, and non-factual data...Basically getting the unwashed masses to get behind them and support the attempt to errode our right to keep and bear arms...

The gentle reminder to the public was to drum up panic in those that do not understand the law in regards to where we can and cannot carry a firearm in facilities like that, and that the fear generated is designed to illicite calls of concern and or other issues that will directly effect the airline industry and its ability to provide those services...

If you were ever privaleged to do anything inside an Israeli airport, and if you knew how fast you would be dealt with if you even picked yer nose in a suspicious manner...You would know what this is all about...

[FIFTY]

Some anti-terrorism experts say that is a glaring security loophole that could endanger airport workers, passengers and people waiting to pick them up or see them off.

These "anti-terrorism" experts want to increase restrictions on people with permits to carry a concealed weapon. I know this is pointing out the obvious, but it's amazing to think that they are actually worried about a terrorist with a CHL... I think we can all agree, a terrorist is probably not going to be particularly concerned about a new regulation saying he is not permitted to carry a firearm in the airport. Geez....

[FlynJay]

Some anti-terrorism experts say that is a glaring security loophole that could endanger airport workers, passengers and people waiting to pick them up or see them off.

These "anti-terrorism" experts want to increase restrictions on people with permits to carry a concealed weapon. I know this is pointing out the obvious, but it's amazing to think that they are actually worried about a terrorist with a CHL... I think we can all agree, a terrorist is probably not going to be particularly concerned about a new regulation saying he is not permitted to carry a firearm in the airport. Geez....

Or the fact that terrorist is going to have a hard time getting a CHL anyways. Something about being fingerprinted that is not high on a terrorist's to-do list.

[Liberty]

The last time I was at Houston Intercontinental Airport (Bush), there were no 30.06 signs. As noted, it's government property and 30.06 signs are not enforceable.

Chas.

True, it is not suppose to be enforceable, but the spokesperson implied they have and do enforce it. Whether that's 30.05 or 30.06, I don't know, but it was clear that they will enforce their "no guns ordinance". Has anyone actually been arrested while legally carrying concealed at GBIA?

The spokesman understood that the journalist was looking to write a sensational article about guns in the airport. Quoted the law about unlawful carry and the reporter ran with it. I carry into both airports on a regular basis, and have seen no signage that would indicate that carry is discouraged by lawfully carrying. There have been no reported incidents of any CHL being hassled as long as they stay away from the bars and the secured areas. ( I believe all the bars are now in the secured terminal areas anyway). As I said I carry regularly into the airport, and will do so again Monday morning without any fear whatsoever.

[Liberty]

But, if it is stated that you will be arrested, regardless of what the law says, some may CHOOSE to not carry. Concealed is concealed, 99.9% of the time. But what about that gust of wind, or you bend over exposing your gun, or someone bumps into you or..... anything that would be OK in a zone where you know you won't be arrested.

It's risk vs reward, and we all have different thresholds. You appear to CHOOSE differently than me. That doesn't make me wrong (or you right). I do what's best for me and my family. I assume you do the same for you and yours.

I believe, that if it is true that they would arrest you at GBIA if detected with a concealed handgun, the risk of that happening is far greater than the risk of not having your gun if needed. That is what I would base my choice on as to whether to carry at that facility or not.

But no one has said that. The Spokesman was talking about a specific violation. Unlawful Carry. If one legally carrys a handgun, with a CHL they will not be charged with a Unlawful Carry. The Houston police understand fullwell CHL and the laws pertaining to it. I would be shocked if anyone were were ever arrested at the airport on a bogus Unlawful carry charge.

I think there is a lot of confusion over Chuck Rosenthal's CHL unfriendlyness and the Houston Police. Even with that idiots encouragement the HPD didn't buy into it and start arresting folks that were car carrying. According to what I've read here and person conversations most of HPD is CHL friendly and actually believe that we are some of the good guys.

[GrillKing]

But no one has said that. The Spokesman was talking about a specific violation. Unlawful Carry.

The reporter mentioned a "strict no guns ordinance". I took this to mean that CHL carry was also (wrongly) prohibited. After your post, I re-read the article and believe you may be correct. The article was not clear to me at first based on the reporter's prefacing statement. I still stand by my philosophy and practice that if you are facing certain arrest if detected for legal carry as we have seen indicated at some locations, and as I originally thought the case to be at GBIA based on my first read of the article, I may choose to not carry. I now believe this may not be the case at GBIA.

Thanks Liberty...