[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

But they did not conclude that. While they did dismiss the NJ gun club as not being covered by the statute and they did have a thorough discussion...

They most certainly DID conclude that. Page 13 of the decision:

In light of the plain meaning of the statute, fully corroborated by the legislative history, we hold that section 926A benefits only those who wish to transport firearms in vehicles — and not, therefore, any of the kinds of “transportation” that, by necessity, would be involved should a person like those represented by the Association wish to transport a firearm by foot through an airport terminal or Port Authority site. Here, the Association seeks injunctive relief that would permit its nonresident members to travel “unmolested” through Port Authority sites such as airports. Self-evidently, such travel must occur outside a vehicle, and thus will, in every instance, bring the Association’s members outside the particular class of persons to whom Congress intended to confer a right under section 926A. Consequently, the Association has no federal right to invoke and thus cannot avail itself of section 1983.

Maybe we're both correct. The Association has no standing because they came before the court on behalf of people who want to travel by other than automobile, and the court found that the law only protects those who travel in automobiles. Early in the decision, though, the question of standing was specifically addressed. It was noted that the Association's original suit did not clearly establish standing, they were allowed to resubmit, and that the question of standing had been resolved satisfactorily. So it wasn't that they were tossed for lack of standing, it was a case of being denied relief because the relief they requested wasn't (according to the Court) available to them under the Court's interpretation of the statute.

Originally Posted by davidsog

I agree and some modicum of a reasonable man standard as well as some common sense should be applied.

The reasonable man standard is what juries are instructed to consider after a trial. The goal of most travelers is to avoid being arrested in the first place, not to pin their hopes on what a jury of 12 people they have never met may consider to be what a hypothetical reasonable man might have done in like circumstances.

Originally Posted by davidsog

I agree. The way things are is the Department of Justice has directed the Port Authority that administers Newark to comply with FOPA to travellers moving thru KEWR.

Yes - five-plus years BEFORE Greg Revell was busted. Not much help.