Aquilla Blanca, and others that have posted referencing 44 USC 926, I repectfully disagree. If you are on a trip, you are covered, as long as the starting point is legal, and the ending point is legal...true, we all agree there, no?
Well, if my trip starts in WA, and I tour the whole of the US, by air, train or auto, doesn't matter, I am still on my trip until I have reached my destination, which, in my stated case, is to return to where I started. (think old pfardt in Motor home) Because I stop in NY to visit my wife's relatives does not make that the end of my journey any more than my stop in MN to visit friends, or CA to visit friends, or whereever...a temporary stop is not necessarily the end point of the journey.
Now, even though I still have posession of the NYC carry permit from 1927 for my Colt 38, I still am not going to stop in NYC, I don't want the hassel, but the argument that you cannot stop in NY, NJ MA or any other restricted state using the Fed transport law is just taking it too far...That is not what is written in the law.
The whole reason for article 1 of the 14th ammendment was to cover interstate travel. The case at the time was allowing blacks from the south to travel outside their state of residence, but all interstate travel is covered. State law cannot inpede interstate travel of citizens of the US, that reside in other states...this is what NYC was trying to keep from being tested in court.
Consider a politician running for president..Perry is a good example as everyone knows he carries...in his campaign travels, what is his destination? The journey begins and ends in TX...just like for Ron Paul..and just another reason to vote for Ron Paul..