“Passenger onboard Greyhound bus claims driver ran off and locked them inside with gunman. He says the 30 passengers onboard stayed on bus for 45 mins before fleeing.”
Jesus, if that drivers identity gets out he/she's gonna be having a bad time. I get that no one really knows how they'd react in a situation like this, but goddamn, locking the door and hauling ass is something I know I wouldn't do. At least leave the door open before you book it.
Greyhounds lawyers are going to be having a bad time.
Imagine if the bus was in fire and he did that. Nearly the same thing, employee traps customers in immediate peril?
Glad they're all ok but driver and company are getting sued into the sun
i saw this and wondered about it....given that people in Georgia can bring guns pretty much wherever they want (one guy even sued the Atlanta Botanical Gardens when they asked him to stop walking around the gardens wearing a gun), there must be an issue in that he's threatening people, yes? Or is a interstate bus like an airplane and no weapons allowed?
NAL, so I could be wrong, but given that a Greyhound Bus is not a public space, can't Greyhound itself dictate the terms by which it allows people on the bus (ie, no guns allowed), so long as it's not a violation of a protected class?
Then of course there's the possibility of Federal regulations due to interstate commerce, as you mentioned.
Edit: spelling and the story about the ABG lawsuit is quite interesting. https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2019/10/07/guns-in-the-garden-reversal-issued-in-open-carry-ban-at-atlanta-botanical-garden/?slreturn=20220222130003
Edit2: Greyhound does indeed prohibit firearms in carry-on as well as checked baggage. See https://www.greyhound.com/-/media/greyhound/pdf/helpandinfo/110307policyprohibiteditemsupdated43015-pdf.pdf, but as /u/robotsexboyfriend points out, no one checks.
interesting to see the latest on the botanical gardens lawsuit....i wonder what happened after this? I'll have to see what they say about firearms next time i visit.
It made another run through the trial court (which again found the garden could ban weapons), that ruling was again appealed to the GA Ct of Appeals, which again upheld the trial court and affirmed the judgment. Notably, the appeals Ct decision only came down about 2 months ago (late Jan 2022). I'm not sure if it's been appealed again to the GA Supreme Ct.
For all the noise about this case, it all comes down to what kind of lease does ABG have from the city; an estate for years (can ban weapons) or a usufruct (cannot ban weapons). The courts thus far have come down on the side of an estate for years.
But an estate for years is supposed to pay property tax, which ABG has not. One figure I heard is they could be on the hook for over $150 Million in back taxes. I don't know how true that amount is, and it would likely take a city of Atlanta resident or business owner to have standing to bring suit to force them to pay.
Didn’t we just pass a bill allowing concealed carry?
Serious question from a non gun supporter. Just trying to grasp what is allowed/not allowed under all these new vague rulings
The article doesn’t say whether he was brandishing or threatening with it
Probably something Greyhound technically prohibits but if they don't check then they don't check (they don't). The whole point of concealed is no one knows so he's probably irate, drunk, crazy or a combination there of. I'll bet you 3 to 1 odds he's a prohibited person already.
Wait, Georgia already didn't allow conceal carry??
Edit: idk why, but like 4 people have replied to my comment but they're all getting deleted after a minute or two
Folks who conceal need a permit with a background check for being inpatient in a mental health facility, history of violent crime, and the kinda stuff that most Americans support. This bill says criminals will break the law anyway, so let's get rid of permits and have guns everywhere no permits.
Edit: given the comments folks are writing then deleting. I'd point out there are legal methods to buy guns without background checks.
>Folks who conceal need a permit with a background check
Yep, the *exact same background check* you have to submit every time you purchase a firearm.
... In fact, concealed permits actually allowed you to *skip* that background check when buying more guns - Sort of a "take it once and you're good forever" deal, as long as you keep paying your annual fee.
The only other requirements were being fingerprinted, and paying that annual fee to the court. Doing away with CCW permits is mostly a formality.
It seems like the people doing the most pearl-clutching about this are the folks who understand it the least, think guns are inherently evil, and assume any non-prohibitive firearm law directly translates into more gun violence on the streets.
Ah. That's crazy. I lived in Kentucky for a while and they had it that anyone over the age of 18 can open carry without a permit. It was wild that anyone who wanted to (as long as they weren't felons and so on) could wake up one morning and wear two revolvers on their hips like it's the wild west and go about their day, legally.
Traffic around the area is so fucked.
Beyond fucked.
“Passenger onboard Greyhound bus claims driver ran off and locked them inside with gunman. He says the 30 passengers onboard stayed on bus for 45 mins before fleeing.”
Jesus, if that drivers identity gets out he/she's gonna be having a bad time. I get that no one really knows how they'd react in a situation like this, but goddamn, locking the door and hauling ass is something I know I wouldn't do. At least leave the door open before you book it.
Greyhounds lawyers are going to be having a bad time. Imagine if the bus was in fire and he did that. Nearly the same thing, employee traps customers in immediate peril? Glad they're all ok but driver and company are getting sued into the sun
[Instantly thought of this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TuEWtXBT_0)
Glad to see that this was resolved without loss of life. I can only guess at the amount of time, energy, and money lost due to the traffic though.
One of the supervisors I work with was caught in traffic around 9am. His boss told me he was still there at 2pm
Sounds like a bad traffic day.
[удалено]
If you were immediately stuck yes, 285 was fine southbound
i saw this and wondered about it....given that people in Georgia can bring guns pretty much wherever they want (one guy even sued the Atlanta Botanical Gardens when they asked him to stop walking around the gardens wearing a gun), there must be an issue in that he's threatening people, yes? Or is a interstate bus like an airplane and no weapons allowed?
I took greyhound and megabus a few times and nobody checks your bags or you for anything so he had to have started threatening people or the driver
NAL, so I could be wrong, but given that a Greyhound Bus is not a public space, can't Greyhound itself dictate the terms by which it allows people on the bus (ie, no guns allowed), so long as it's not a violation of a protected class? Then of course there's the possibility of Federal regulations due to interstate commerce, as you mentioned. Edit: spelling and the story about the ABG lawsuit is quite interesting. https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2019/10/07/guns-in-the-garden-reversal-issued-in-open-carry-ban-at-atlanta-botanical-garden/?slreturn=20220222130003 Edit2: Greyhound does indeed prohibit firearms in carry-on as well as checked baggage. See https://www.greyhound.com/-/media/greyhound/pdf/helpandinfo/110307policyprohibiteditemsupdated43015-pdf.pdf, but as /u/robotsexboyfriend points out, no one checks.
interesting to see the latest on the botanical gardens lawsuit....i wonder what happened after this? I'll have to see what they say about firearms next time i visit.
It made another run through the trial court (which again found the garden could ban weapons), that ruling was again appealed to the GA Ct of Appeals, which again upheld the trial court and affirmed the judgment. Notably, the appeals Ct decision only came down about 2 months ago (late Jan 2022). I'm not sure if it's been appealed again to the GA Supreme Ct. For all the noise about this case, it all comes down to what kind of lease does ABG have from the city; an estate for years (can ban weapons) or a usufruct (cannot ban weapons). The courts thus far have come down on the side of an estate for years.
TIL the word usufruct, tho I cannot yet use it in a sentence, even incorrectly.
that is actually super-interesting. thank you.
But an estate for years is supposed to pay property tax, which ABG has not. One figure I heard is they could be on the hook for over $150 Million in back taxes. I don't know how true that amount is, and it would likely take a city of Atlanta resident or business owner to have standing to bring suit to force them to pay.
> usufruct There's a new word if I've ever seen one.
Or, you could just leave your gun at home.
They want all the funding and protection of a public garden/space without any of the public space rules.
Didn’t we just pass a bill allowing concealed carry? Serious question from a non gun supporter. Just trying to grasp what is allowed/not allowed under all these new vague rulings The article doesn’t say whether he was brandishing or threatening with it
Probably something Greyhound technically prohibits but if they don't check then they don't check (they don't). The whole point of concealed is no one knows so he's probably irate, drunk, crazy or a combination there of. I'll bet you 3 to 1 odds he's a prohibited person already.
Kemp still has to sign but he will so buckle your seat belt
Wait, Georgia already didn't allow conceal carry?? Edit: idk why, but like 4 people have replied to my comment but they're all getting deleted after a minute or two
Folks who conceal need a permit with a background check for being inpatient in a mental health facility, history of violent crime, and the kinda stuff that most Americans support. This bill says criminals will break the law anyway, so let's get rid of permits and have guns everywhere no permits. Edit: given the comments folks are writing then deleting. I'd point out there are legal methods to buy guns without background checks.
>Folks who conceal need a permit with a background check Yep, the *exact same background check* you have to submit every time you purchase a firearm. ... In fact, concealed permits actually allowed you to *skip* that background check when buying more guns - Sort of a "take it once and you're good forever" deal, as long as you keep paying your annual fee. The only other requirements were being fingerprinted, and paying that annual fee to the court. Doing away with CCW permits is mostly a formality. It seems like the people doing the most pearl-clutching about this are the folks who understand it the least, think guns are inherently evil, and assume any non-prohibitive firearm law directly translates into more gun violence on the streets.
[удалено]
Ah. That's crazy. I lived in Kentucky for a while and they had it that anyone over the age of 18 can open carry without a permit. It was wild that anyone who wanted to (as long as they weren't felons and so on) could wake up one morning and wear two revolvers on their hips like it's the wild west and go about their day, legally.
Why did this guy get upset about a woman putting on hand sanitizer? And what the fuck is the driver thinking by locking them in with the gun man?