Tea party patriots co-founder arrested on gun charges at nyc airport

[brickeyee]

Meckler had the gun in his possession while in the act of traveling when arrested at LaGuardia and is consequently protected by FOPA.

You might try reading FOPA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...6---A000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 926A
§ 926A. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Emphasis added

It does NOT APPLY if possession of the gun in the starting AND ending state is not legal.

Without a NYC permit the gun is not legal to possess in NYC.

[MTT TL]

That was a very useful link thallub.

I try to imagine living in such a society and I can not.

[secret_agent_man]

Meckler prosecuted on the right coast, and now persecuted on the left coast:

http://www.theunion.com/article/2011...ntprofile=1053

[johnbt]

"...persecuted..."

Nonsense.

[MTT TL]

Agreed. He made his bed and now he has to lie in it. I wish him luck but the fallout will continue to haunt him.

The last time I went to NY (not on duty) I was completely ignorant of their laws. That would not have saved me had I been caught in possession though. This was about 25 years ago. I would say that with the internet these days you have absolutely no excuse not to know the laws.

[secret_agent_man]

with the internet these days you have absolutely no excuse not to know the laws.

By the same token, the state of new york has no excuse not to know the Second Amendment.

[BGutzman]

By the same token, the state of new york has no excuse not to know the Second Amendment.

Amen.... my friend Amen......

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Most states did not until the recent wave of shall issue and other laws. It's a new revival.

I had a permit to carry in OR which I had to give up when I came to TX. TX didn't have a carry law at that time.

NY and IL will have to be taken down by either federal legislation or a more comprehensive SCOTUS challenge.

[MTT TL]

Seems New York did not want to take their chances in court. Everyone else they prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But a well funded pro 2A rights lawyer gets a free pass. Justice?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/gu...-party-leader/

In any case he was smart to plead out. In the end it could have gone on for years. I wonder if they will let the numerous other people who have recently been arrested under similar circumstances go?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

I wonder if they will let the numerous other people who have recently been arrested under similar circumstances go?

There have been at least three in the news over the past two or three weeks. My guess is that will end like this one. Why? Because NYC does NOT want to have their gun laws tested in court. I'm sure their legal department is smart enough to know that, after Heller and McDonald, their laws will not stand up to scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution, so they'll keep arresting people and harassing them, but I think they'll avoid an actual Constitutional confrontation for as long as they possibly can.

[44 AMP]

If a state does not allow non-residents any mode of carry, does that not effectively create a ban?

I don't see how, in legal terms, although it does in practical terms.

Basically, one is not forced to travel to any other state. Unless you are required to, by law travel to another state, ALL travel is voluntary. The fact that you may need to go, on business, or for any other personal reason is a matter of personal choice.

And since it is your personal choice, you are not being denied anything by the law. You are choosing to go there, and by doing so, give implied consent to abide by their laws while there.

It is your responsibility to determine what, if any difference in the laws exist, between where you are going and where you live.

That a lawyer does not do this before traveling, and considering the simple fact that NYC has had uber restictive handgun laws for generations, shows a lack of forsight. This does not reflect well on his capacities as legal council, in my opinion.

[maestro pistolero]

Basically, one is not forced to travel to any other state. Unless you are required to, by law travel to another state, ALL travel is voluntary. The fact that you may need to go, on business, or for any other personal reason is a matter of personal choice.

No, there is a right to travel freely from state to state at will and nowhere is it written in the constitution that one must leave fundamental civil rights behind.

Imagine a state law that forbade entering NY with a Bible or a Koran. Imagine a state law that said the 4th amendment didn't apply in NY for out of state residents. Or a state law that said you could be traffic stopped without RS or PC, because you have an out of state license plate.

None of these scenarios would survive ANY judicial standard of review, and neither should the denial of second amendment rights.

[hermannr]

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..

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by hermannr

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.

That's not the way the FOPA is applied. If you stop somewhere to visit someone, that location becomes a destination and you become subject to that location's laws while you are there. The FOPA was expressly intended to allow you to transit through states where you might not be legal, but it does not cover you to stop there other than for necessaries associated with "the normal course of travel."

I don't like it, either, but that is the way it works.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Hermannr,

Your definition of "destination" doesn't even fit common vernacular.

If you're from Washington state, headed out on a 10 day trip and someone asks "Where you going?", you don't say "Washington!" You tell them, "Couple days in Denver, then off too Houston...."

I don't like the current situation either but trying to justify a tortured interpretation of a word to skirt the intent isn't helping.

[Double Naught Spy]

No, there is a right to travel freely from state to state at will and nowhere is it written in the constitution that one must leave fundamental civil rights behind.

If the issue concerns firearms as a fundamental right, whether you leave your state or not, your civil rights are being violated, at least in theory and likely in reality. In theory, the government that established said rights is in conflict with them.

Hermannr,

Your definition of "destination" doesn't even fit common vernacular.

If you're from Washington state, headed out on a 10 day trip and someone asks "Where you going?", you don't say "Washington!" You tell them, "Couple days in Denver, then off too Houston...."

Right. When you leave your home to travel on business, vacation, etc., your destination isn't home. If it was, then you would not be leaving, LOL.

[brickeyee]

No, there is a right to travel freely from state to state at will and nowhere is it written in the constitution that one must leave fundamental civil rights behind.

The definition and extend of those "fundamental civil rights" is what is being 'explored' in light of the recent 2nd amendment cases from SCOTUS.

o form criteria has been established for what level of intrusion is allowed (strict scrutiny, compelling interest, etc.).

While there are may years of jurisprudence for the 1st and 4th amendments, there is barely any on the 2nd.

[Tom-Fairfax]

You know he didn't set this up on purpose because a conviction on a gun charge will cost him his law license.

[MLeake]

He may well have; it would give him standing for any and all appeals. A lawyer and political middle-heavyweight would make for a very good test case for SAF, etc.