[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 12, 2009
No. 08-15571 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
__________________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-02171-CV-MHS-1
GEORGIACARRY.ORG, INC.,
TIMOTHY BEARDEN,
Plaintiffs-Counter-
Defendants-Appellants,
versus
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.
_________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia
__________________________________
(March 12, 2009)
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, the district court held that
H.B. 89 does not apply to the Airport. It therefore granted appellees’ 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.
2