Case ID: f-appx_318/html/0851-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC., Timothy Bearden, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, Shirley Franklin, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, Benjamin DeCosta, in his official capacity as Aviation General Manager of the City of Atlanta, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15571
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 12, 2009.
    
      John R. Monroe, Roswell, GA, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants.
    Yonette Sam-Buchanan, Christopher Allen Riley, Erica L. Fenby, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Joshua David Jewkes, Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.
    Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants brought this law suit in the district court to obtain a declaration that House Bill 89 (“H.B.89”), which the Georgia General Assembly enacted on April 4, 2008, permits a person who possesses a Georgia license to carry a firearm in the non-sterile areas of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (“Airport”). According to appellants, H.B. 89 overrides the City of Atlanta’s longstanding policy prohibiting visitors to the Airport from carrying firearms. Appellees, in their answer, asserted that H.B. 89 does not apply to the Airport and that, if it did apply, H.B. 89 would be preempted by the pervasive scheme of federal law and regulations governing airport security.

Appellees moved the district court for judgment on the pleadings. In a comprehensive order entered on September 26, 2008, 602 F.Supp.2d 1281, the district court held that H.B. 89 does not apply to the Airport. It therefore granted appel-lees’ motion and dismissed appellants’ complaint. Appellants now appeal, arguing that contrary to the district court’s holding, H.B. 89 does apply to the Airport. We reject their argument, concluding for the reasons stated in the district court’s September 26 order that appellants’ argument is meritless.

AFFIRMED.