Atlanta Falcons Response to Gun Ban Challenge © 2019 Phillip Evans

Doug Richards with 11Alive ran a story on Georgia Carry's challenge to the Atlanta Falcons gun ban at Mercedes-Benz Stadium.

Photo by Munkaslany, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/guns-falcons-stadium/85-c4191d03-cd5a-4611-ad18-7d58b01c8027

The response of the Falcons was:

“Mercedes-Benz Stadium will continue to operate in compliance with the laws of the State of Georgia and ban weapons from entering the premises,” a spokeswoman told 11Alive news.  

Apparently billionaire Falcons owner Arthur Blank believes himself to be above following state law. Let's see how long he can keep up his defiance until he loses as badly as the Falcons have been.

The 11Alive News reporter said:

"The Georgia Supreme Court sent the Botanical Garden case back to a lower court for clarification. If Georgia Carry prevails again – the Falcons may need to lawyer up."

Folks, that's not quite correct, but I understand how he could have gotten mixed up a bit. This is a story with a lot of moving parts. Allow me to detangle:

The lower court case he mentioned is merely to rule on what type of lease the Atlanta Botanical Garden has.

We ALREADY know what type of lease the Atlanta Falcons has, it's a "usufruct" (actually that's clearly spelled out in the lease itself), and the Georgia Supreme Court has made a FINAL decision binding to ALL other courts that a lessee with a usufruct type lease of publicly owned property may NOT exclude lawful carriers of weapons.

It's a done deal, it's now settled and established law. 

The Georgia World Center Authority which owns the stadium now knows that Falcons owner Arthur Blank is recalcitrant regarding state law.

Here's what 11Alive should be asking:

Will the GWCCA compel the Falcons to follow state law?

Will Attorney General Chris Carr publicly weigh in on this?

How much longer do Georgia citizens need to wait before their lawful right of self-defense on public property under state law is finally recognized? 

Isn't a Georgia Supreme Court ruling enough to settle this matter?

Georgia Carry Challenges Atlanta Falcons Gun Ban © 2019 Phillip Evans

On Oct. 22nd, Atty. John R. Monroe sent Falcons General Counsel Mike Egan a letter explaining that the Falcons were not in compliance with state law due to their policy banning off-duty police officers and licensed citizens carrying firearms at Mercedes-Benz Stadium.

Photo by Atlanta Falcons under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license

They've actually been violating state law since July 1st, 2014. (Edit: Since 2017 when they started playing games there) That's when the law was clarified to ensure that only PRIVATE property may ban firearms in addition to the spelled out off-limits location under state law. Those are the only two categories where licensed carry can be banned. Citizens are authorized to carry everywhere else under our State Constitution and Statue 16-11-127 of the OCGA.

The clarification I referred to above was the addition (in House Bill 60) of the word "private" placed four times into the weapons law right before "property".

However, lower courts were not able to read and comprehend this significant clarification of the law. Words mean things, okay judges? The Georgia Supreme Court had the last word and got it right Oct. 7th this year in case number S18G1149, "Georgia Carry, Inc. v. Atlanta Botanical Garden, Inc." That was also my case, by the way, and I am honored to be part of Georgia's judicial history.

The Court ruled that public property leased as a license only ("usufruct") is still public property. Guess what kind of lease the Falcons has? Yep, a usufruct.

So if it's public property, and if it's not considered to be a "government building" (government buildings can ban weapons when screening is in place, with a few exceptions such as courthouses which are off-limits even without screening), licensed carriers cannot be banned per Georgia's highest Court.

Guns in stadiums? There are people that will tell you guns don't belong in parks since you shouldn't fear any wayward squirrel hijacking you, or that guns don't belong in grocery stores because no one has ever been attacked by a head of cabbage, not counting the time one might have rolled off the pile and slammed into your foot. 

Tell those same people bad things can happen anywhere at any time and they will just roll their eyes at you and call you a "gun nut". Put them in a dangerous situation with unpredictable armed thugs, and those same people will be doing two things: 1. wishing they were armed and 2. telling themselves if they survive, next time they will be.

Georgia Carry and the law should prevail. If it does, that means off-duty police officers, heretofore forbidden by the Falcons to be armed in the stadium, will be allowed to have their duty weapons with them, which will make for an even safer environment. Adding licensed carriers certainly won't hurt, either. We are not the problem in society, the criminals are.

The Falcons are not without options!

1. They can offer to buy Mercedes-Benz Stadium and own it outright, making it truly private property.

2. They can build their own private stadium.

3. They can make arrangements with a government council or board to use the existing stadium as the place where it meets in its official capacity, turning it into a "government building".

The option they don't have is not following the law. The law applies equally to all, no matter how rich or powerful.

Coolray Field, Infinite Energy Center, Chastain Park Amphitheater, and Gun Show Promoters who hold shows in public parks are among the venues that will also have to obey state law.

Part 2:

https://pursuitofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2019/10/atlanta-falcons-response-to-gun-ban.html

Part 3: https://pursuitofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2019/11/georgia-guns-in-publicly-owned-stadiums.html

Atlanta Botanical Garden Gun Rights Lawsuit - Victory! © 2019 Phillip Evans

Finally, after a long five year fight in the courts, GeorgiaCarry.org and I won a highly satisfying victory from the Georgia Supreme Court, published Monday, Oct. 7th, 2019.

Atlanta Botanical Garden photo by David Berkowitz used under Creative Commons 2.0 License

For the Atlanta Botanical Garden in particular, one small detail needs to be taken care of by a lower court. Their lease with the City of Atlanta must be ruled on to determine if it is a "usufruct" (to possess and enjoy the fruits thereof), or an "estate for years" (as if one owns the property).

However, the main issue was settled (in a sense). If a private entity leases public property, and if that lease is not an "estate for years", then that private entity cannot ban lawfully carried weapons onto the property.

I stated, "in a sense", because there are an awful lot of leases of public property out there, and I'm wondering if each one must be litigated. I suppose so it would seem. 

But this is not all thorns and weeds. Consider this scenario: A person who is licensed to carry, carries into a public park for an event to which the public is invited, but the event is hosted by a private entity which leases the park for the event. Event security along with local police throw the person out.

That person can sue, and if the lease is found to not grant ownership rights (hint: probably about zero leases of public property which is used for the benefit of the public are "estate for years" type leases), then the event host, their private security, the police, and the local government can be sued and lose big time, with at least the local government being responsible for the legal fees of the plaintiff. Will they risk it?

Where does this public vs. private property argument come from? Back in 2014, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 60 which was signed into law by then Gov. Deal. 

Four times the word, "private" was inserted before "property" in the weapons law (OCGA 16-11-127), in order to ensure that local governments could not do an end-run around state preemption by leasing public property to a private entity. Looks pretty clear, right?

Apparently neither Judge Gail Tusan of Fulton County Superior Court nor the GA Court of Appeals could grok a clear understanding of this law, but thankfully the highest court in Georgia did. Sad that it took five long years to get here.

But coming back to the Garden. I have read their lease contract, obtained via an open records request with the City of Atlanta. To me, the way it reads (and I'm not a lawyer), is that it is merely a usufruct. 

Too many stipulations by the City make it hard to believe that the Garden holds 30 acres of Atlanta's Piedmont Park as if it were the owner, notwithstanding the 50-year long term of the lease.

One mildly humorous argument made by the Garden's attorneys was that if Georgia Carry and I win, publicly owned stadiums would be awash with guns and no one could do anything about it.

To those who have and who will continue to hand-wring about this, folks, this is a nothing burger. There is already a law in place that takes care of this.

Most large publicly owned stadiums are considered to be "government buildings", and if weapons screening is in place, they may indeed lawfully ban firearms. 

If a public building does not qualify as a "government building", it can become one by being the place where a government entity meets in its official capacity.  

Some supposed gun-rights supporters have said I should have kept my firearm concealed and then there would have been no issue.

Well, what if my cover garment got blown by the wind, or I reached up to point at a tree and my gun became visible? There's nothing wrong with lawful concealed carry, but hiding your firearm doesn't solve everything. Frankly, neither does open carry. 

But you know what? True liberty means not being forced to conceal.

What if I want to openly, honestly, and honorably wear my holstered pistol? If the law allows me to, it is then a public exercise of my rights if I so choose to do so. Don't knock my manner of carry and I won't knock yours. Live and let live, right? This isn't about debating open vs. concealed carry. It's about public and private entities following state law.

I'm looking forward to starting back my family's visits to the Garden. It is one of the most beautiful places to visit in Atlanta. They've done a great job there with their large plant sculptures and other displays. Tell them I sent you.

A huge thanks to Georgia Carry, and to Attorney John R. Monroe for his tireless efforts and long hours in litigating this case, with perhaps a little more work ahead if the Garden does not concede that its contract is a usufruct.

Please consider joining Georgia Carry and become part of a force to be reckoned with when it comes to fighting for our rights in Georgia.

New: Click here to listen to Atty. John R. Monroe give an interview on public radio.