|
If we agree that the law is unclear, how could he have been expected to "know" that he should not have retrieved his luggage? After all, he was in transit from one legal jurisdiction to another. His trip did not start or end in New York. Changes of flights and missed connections are common occurrences when flying. It certainly was not the INTENT of the FOPA that a traveler who missed a connection and had to sleep in a hotel overnight could not retrieve his pajamas and toothbrush because his legally-declared and cased firearm happened to be in the same suitcase.
Further, if he was so clearly in violation of the law, I seriously doubt the prosecutor would have dropped the charges.
I do agree that this case shows there are flaws in the language of the FOPA, and I think what happened to Mr. Revell sends up red flags for the rest of us to be aware of ... but I don't think he can or should be criticized for believing that he was within his rights and within the law for proceeding as he did.
|