Impact of Firearms Laws on Airports (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 55-61
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 55... ...
55 Although the court held that § 926A applies to transportation of firearms in vehicles, the case may be distinguishable in that it did not involve transportation by air directly.
|
From page 56... ...
56 not apply to federal civil rights actions, which could arise from deprivation of constitutional rights." Although there are cases holding that some airports have sovereign immunity for tort actions, except for one case discussed in the next part of the digest, no cases against airports were located for the digest that arose out of an individual's possession of a firearm in an airport terminal or on other airport property.590 B State Laws Applicable to Whether an Airport Is Liable for Allowing or Prohibiting a Firearm in the Airport Terminal or on Other Airport Property Some state statutes provide that airports or airport authorities are immune from claims by persons that arise out of the carrying (or for prohibiting the carrying)
|
From page 57... ...
57 In Monzo v. American Airlines,600 Monzo was arrested and charged for possessing a loaded firearm after he informed a security officer at a check-in point at LaGuardia Airport in New York City that he was carrying a loaded firearm.
|
From page 58... ...
58 imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution caused by acts or omissions of United States investigative or law enforcement officers. The amendment, together with 28 U.S.C.
|
From page 59... ...
59 new category of defendants.'"625 A 2009 Government Accountability Office report concluded that even when Bivens claims have been allowed, the likelihood of an eventual monetary recovery in a Bivens case is quite rare.626 A second obstacle to Bivens claims is that "[g] overnment officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior."627 Because vicarious liability does not apply in a Bivens case (or in § 1983 actions)
|
From page 60... ...
60 3. Whether There Is a § 1983 Claim for Prohibiting an Individual from Carrying a Firearm in an Airport It does not appear that a complaint against an airport or airport authority, its officers, or employees would state a claim under § 1983 based on prohibiting an individual from carrying a firearm; for example, in the nonsterile area of an airport.
|
From page 61... ...
61 agreement between Gibbs's lawyer and the assistant district attorney, Gibbs brought a § 1983 action against Officer Lomas on the basis that there was neither probable cause for his arrest nor a warrant for the search of his car. In Wisconsin, unless there are circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent, "loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm" is excluded under Wisconsin's statute on disorderly conduct.656 The court discussed the basis for a § 1983 action and what must be shown for a defendant to have qualified immunity.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.