Quote:
|
So the moral of all this is for us not to travel with firearms in the 3rd District if we might have to rely on the FOPA ...
|
So it would seem.
The rulings point out a crucial difference between our general understanding of what FOPA does, and what it actually does.
We say FOPA protects us from the "bad" gun laws while we travel, if it is legal where we start, and legal where we are going, and generally that is accurate, if imprecise.
What the rulings have shown is that while FOPA "protects" us, it only does so if we do not have possession of the weapon in an area where it is illegal to do so. It is a defense against conviction when the state accuses you of illegal possession, and you actually are not in possession. Otherwise, basically, you are toast.
So, FOPA protection hinges on possession. And possession is defined by whether or not you have access to your firearm, not on whether or not you actually do have it in your hands. FOPA was intended to also cover us in those situations where you could have legal possession, but not physical possession. Fuel/rest stops, for instance, where the gun (cased) is in the trunk and you have access to the trunk (legal possession) yet do not take physical possession (remove it from the case, or the case from, the trunk).
Regardless of the intent of FOPA, the interpretation of what was actually written as law appears to be that if you have the gun in your possession, where it is illegal, you will be charged (and likely convicted).
Carrying the gun into the airport to check it as baggage is clearly in your possession. Both in legal and physical terms.