December 2, 2018, 01:04 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,716
|
The upstate newspapers regularly run stories about out of state travelers that try to fly out of Buffalo, Rochester, or Syracuse with handguns.
They are regularly arrested and charged with a felony. So, in this case the OP would most likely make the Buffalo News...….and not in a good way. As a side bar, many times non NYS residents try to get entrance into Canada through NY, but are turned away if they bring a handgun ( even when they declare it to the Canadian customs agents. ) The Canadians alert the US border patrol when the travelers try to reenter the US, and they are always charged.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. |
December 2, 2018, 01:23 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
However, if you are not a in legal possession of the weapon, according to the law of the state you are standing in when you walk through the airport, you ARE breaking the law. Which is why you will get a "hassle" from Port Authority, TSA, and any other law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction, once they learn you have an illegal weapon. My personal experience with this dates from 2003, and while there may have been changes since then, I doubt any changes made have been less restrictive... My family lived in upper NY state. I grew up there, even got a NY pistol permit (at age 18!!). Moved to the Pacific NW after getting out of the Army. When my father passed in 2003, I returned to NY for the funeral, and to help settle his affairs. I wound up with 3 of his pistols and 2 of his deer rifles. My brother (living in the same house) kept 2 of his pistols and a the rest of his long arms. The rifles, I could, and did, carry to the Albany airport, cased, declared, inspected by the authorities, then secured (with an approved lock) and checked as baggage. I could not legally do this with the pistols. I did not have a valid NY pistol permit, with those pistols on it. I had had such a permit, with those pistols on it, since 1975, but since I was no longer a NY resident, my old NY permit was invalid. So I could not legally possess them in NY. My brother did have a valid permit for those pistols, so we took them to an FFL in NY and had them shipped to an FFL near my home. The point here is that I did not have a valid permit for the pistols in NY. Therefore, I could not legally possess them in NY. Therefore, I could not legally carry them into any airport (or anywhere else) to declare and check them for shipment. The RIFLES, I could. NY did not require a permit for them (at that time). So, while I flew home with a couple of Dad's deer rifles, I could not take his pistols. IF I had been driving home, the law would have been the same. I could have put the rifles in my car and driven home, but not the pistols, because inside the borders of the state of New York, I could not legally possess them, and that included empty, cased, and locked in the trunk of my car. And, FOPA would not have covered me driving home with them, either. Let me say this one more time to be clear, it does not matter to NY who issued or how may other states permits you have. If you do not have a valid NY permit for the pistol, you are breaking NY law. Period. I strongly recommend you do not break the law. Good Luck!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 2, 2018, 01:25 PM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
However they also correctly conclude: Quote:
|
||
December 2, 2018, 01:28 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
|
|
December 2, 2018, 01:32 PM | #30 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
You can't cherry pick the sentence you like and ignore the multiple sentences that don't support your position. |
||
December 2, 2018, 01:46 PM | #31 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/doj_doc_nyc_air.pdf As for Newark.... I think I am going to join a shooting range in Pennsylvania just so I travel thru EWR with my pistols. Hopefully some overzealous and ignorant Port Authority Officer will arrest me. I need a new boat!!! |
||
December 2, 2018, 02:06 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,237
|
You usually don’t profit by getting arrested. You can beat the charges but you still get a ride in the police car and you still get to pay your legal fees, haven’t seen many people profit from getting arrested you may have to sell some things, but I doubt you’ll get a boat out of the deal.
|
December 2, 2018, 02:14 PM | #33 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
^^^ That's not from the NY Attorney General's office, it's from the U.S. Department of Justice.
I was not aware that this was out there. It's very much in our favor but it was written in 2005, which was about 5 years before Greg Revell was arrested at Newark. So either this opinion was rescinded or superseded, or the DOJ did not follow through with the promise in the letter that they would "inform the applicable law enforcement authorities of [their] interpretation of section 926A." This letter is now 13 years old, yet mikejonestkd reports that flyers with guns are regularly being busted at the Buffalo airport. |
December 2, 2018, 02:20 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
He would have been protected under FOPA. |
|
December 2, 2018, 02:27 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
There is some legal wrangling on the part of the NJ Justices to try and diminish ones capacity to be compensated but there is quite a bit of room for a savvy lawyer to burn the State of New Jersey and the Federal Gov't over EWR's actions should they EVER arrest someone traveling lawfully under the FOPA. As for people being arrested in BUF transporting firearms.... I see nothing that shows BUF Port Authority or LEO's violating anyone FOPA rights. They have arrested several passengers with LOADED firearms and several RESIDENTS attempting to travel. None of the conditions give you protection under FOPA. |
|
December 2, 2018, 02:30 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Obviously you are all aware one cannot sue the Federal Government. You submit a lawsuit, it is dismissed (because you cannot sue the Federal Government), and as a condition of the Government immunity from lawsuits and part of the dismissal process........the Government is ordered into arbitration to satisfactorily solve the issue.
|
December 2, 2018, 02:33 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
|
|
December 2, 2018, 08:32 PM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
I don't know if it has been tested in court but what happens if someone is driving from New York City to Los Angeles? That's about a five day drive, at best. If you get off the interstate in Kansas and take a room at the first motel you find by the interchange, and all you do is grab a bite to eat, a shower, and six hours of sleep, is Kansas a "destination" because you had to sleep? It isn't to me and I would hope that it isn't under the law, but how is that any different from Greg Revell's situation other than the fact that Revell was traveling by commercial aircraft rather than by private automobile? |
|
December 2, 2018, 10:04 PM | #39 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
He got his luggage and missed his bus. That was his choice and he takes responsibility for the consequences. It is not reasonable to assume his fellow travellers must now wait for Mr Revell's luggage. He missed his bus because of his choice. Quote:
Had the Airline gotten you a hotel and returned your luggage until the next day, you still would have been under the reasonable man standard in an "Awaiting Transportation" status. The difference being you have no choice and are following the travel instructions of the airline which is your "transport". I would certainly bring it to the airlines attention that you checked a firearm and are concerned about the state firearm laws. If the airline could not offer a remedy the I would lock that firearm and ammunition up in the hotel safe and get a time stamped receipt from the manager. Had Mr Revell been in that circumstance, the State of New Jersey would have a different problem on their hands. Mr Revell voluntarily giving up his mode of transportation to remain in NJ makes NJ a destination for the night. It is the same with TDY travel status in the Military. Quote:
No, it is prudent and reasonable that you have to sleep. Once more, it is unsafe to drive fatigued. Reasonable man standard would prevail. Mr Revell gave up his means of transportation and chose to stay in NJ. He had a scheduled departure that would have brought him out of the state and kept him protected under FOPA. Last edited by davidsog; December 2, 2018 at 10:34 PM. |
|||
December 2, 2018, 10:08 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
They probably be stopped so the states can charge admission to see this oddity and very rare beast. |
|
December 2, 2018, 11:17 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
In this and your post immediately preceding, you are injecting your opinions on matters that have not been adjudicated and which have no legal precedent that you can cite. I agree that what you propose is what the FOPA should mean, but until there is binding legal precedent I can point to I'm not willing to take the risk of testing (or chumming) the waters.
Quote:
We need to be careful in these discussions. There's another thread running parallel to this one that's a general discussion about the Constitution. We can be as theoretical as we want in that one. This thread was opened for an individual to ask specific advice on a specific situation. I think it is dangerous in such a thread to delve into theoretical, "this is what we think it should mean" statements without being VERY clear that there is no legal precedent to back up those statements. I, for one, try very diligently not to offer anything that might be mistaken as advice that could get someone in legal trouble. It's also important to understand what constitutes precedent, and what it says. For example, you posted that the NJ Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs' case was decided against them because they didn't have standing. The citation you provided a link to clearly stated that they DID have standing, and clearly stated that the court held that the FOPA only applies to travel by automobile. So citing that case to imply that the OP might be safe bringing his gun to an airport in Buffalo, NY, is giving advice that could (and likely would) create a rather large kerfluffle for the OP. I don't think that was your intention, but we need to be aware that actions have consequences, and that in the real world it can be hazardous to proceed based on the way we think things should be rather than the way things are. |
|
December 2, 2018, 11:47 PM | #42 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
It is obvious that the Federal Department of Justice is crystal clear and even the state of NJ realize: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nobody is offering legal advice nor is there any legal relationship. Quote:
That is a fact and in theory the State of New Jersey must comply with Federal Law as per our Civil War. As a traveller, you are taking a risk they might decide to test the waters. |
||||||
December 2, 2018, 11:48 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
I wish you all would separate NY city and NY state !! Two different worlds !
Take your pistol to a dealer at the beginning of the trip and send the gun to a dealer at the end of your trip and pick it up.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
December 3, 2018, 12:01 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
|
|
December 3, 2018, 01:28 AM | #45 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
This is what the NRA's legal advice for traveling by air under FOPA:
Quote:
Quote:
It looks like NYC and NJ are hellbent on turning law abiding citizens innocently traveling to other places into criminals. |
||
December 3, 2018, 01:33 AM | #46 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
December 3, 2018, 12:06 PM | #47 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The issue that FOPA remedies is when they unlawfully push their viewpoint upon someone who is legally compliant in their home, traveling to a destination in which they are still legally compliant, exercising their right to freedom of movement to travel thru without fear. I do not understand why it is so hard to understand Greg Revell denied his means of transport and violated a key clause of the FOPA.... "uninterrupted travel".... Up until he chose to miss that airline provided alternate transport, despite the weather delays and cancellation resulting in alternate travel, he was still in an "uninterrupted" travel status. Skipping that bus and going to get a hotel room with your guns/ammunition accessible is a clear violation of FOPA. You are literally in compliance with none of the requirements by turning New Jersey into a "destination" while having your guns as well as ammunition accessible. It is a bad example for us to fall upon our swords over. Last edited by davidsog; December 3, 2018 at 12:12 PM. |
|||
December 3, 2018, 01:50 PM | #48 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
It is clear in the brief that although the plain language clearly only covers automobiles, the NJ court recognizes that is not the intent nor is that a majority interpretation of the statute. The statute can reasonably be interpreted as: Quote:
Only thru Political Activism from the Bench will NJ win. |
||
December 3, 2018, 06:49 PM | #49 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Assuming your take could be correct -- since Revell knew about the FOPA, wouldn't your "reasonable man" hypothesis have suggested to him that he would be safe? In fact, didn't you state in a previous post that people ARE safe dragging guns through airports in New York State? Quote:
If I'm driving from New York to California (or let's say Arizona, to be sure I'm legal to possess at the terminus of my trip), I'm going to need to stop for sleep several times in the course of my trip. I don't think I'm "interrupting my travel" each time I get off the interstate and find the first motel that has a vacancy so I can grab some shuteye. By your interpretation, I would have to drive straight through all the way from NYC to Phoenix. Am I allowed to stop for gasoline, a rest room break, and to buy a sandwich to eat in the car? I assume I'm not allowed to sit down for lunch or dinner in a McDonald's, because that would be interrupting my travel. All these nuances you're bringing in now are after-the-fact Monday morning quarterbacking. The fact that we are discussing them at all should tell us that the FOPA is not at all clear. In fact, there is currently a circuit split as to whether or not the FOPA covers travel by other than automobile. The fact of a circuit split is proof that the law is not clear. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 3, 2018 at 07:11 PM. |
|||||
December 3, 2018, 09:15 PM | #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,326
|
Quote:
Not after turning down his scheduled transport (bus the airline arranged). Certainly not after spending the night in a hotel with full access to his gun and ammunition which is the major contention the state of NJ makes against Mr Revell. Nowhere in FOPA does it say have your gun/ammunition readily accessible. So no matter what, that particular point must be overcome. Do I think NJ is being petty and excessive? YES. The intent of FOPA is allow lawful freedom of movement. Clearly the state of NJ violates that intent in the zeal to grab guns. A few basic questions would establish a possible litmus test for NJ LEO's. 1. Are there any hits in LEDS/NCIS when running Mr Revells info? 2. Is he a legal resident of NJ? 3. Is he legal to own a firearm in his state of residency? 3. Is he legal to have a firearm in his destination? NO-NO-YES-YES = release While I understand for some reason the NJ justices felt requiring NJ law enforcement to answer those simple question was somehow difficult... Facts are it is not very hard at all. With today's communication speeds and availability of data it takes far less time and taxpayer money to answer those questions than it did to process the arrest paperwork. I think that route is more productive than trying to avail Mr Revell of all culpability in a situation of his creation. Quote:
|
||
|
|