New York and CCW

[mikejonestkd]

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.

[44 AMP]

You can even walk thru JFK, LGA, or EWR with you weapon in your locked box and suitcase on the way to check your luggage in without fear of being hassled by the Port Authority.

Well, that's kind of obvious, isn't it? With your weapon "concealed" in your luggage, they don't know you have it, until you declare it at the airline counter.

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!

[davidsog]

Third Circuit has determined that the protections of the FOPA do not apply to a passenger who walks into an airport with a firearm in his/her suitcase.

They do go thru a rather verbose explaination of how the plain language does not cover foot traffic.

However they also correctly conclude:

Awkwardly worded though the statute may be, it can reasonably be construed as a comprehensive defense for people traveling with firearms.

[davidsog]

Well, that's kind of obvious, isn't it? With your weapon "concealed" in your luggage, they don't know you have it, until you declare it at the airline counter.

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.

New York is your destination and you are correct. YOU are NOT covered by FOPA.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

However they also correctly conclude:

For people traveling by car.

You can't cherry pick the sentence you like and ignore the multiple sentences that don't support your position.

[davidsog]

Transporting Firearms Through New York
The best way to travel through NY or any state that has restriction is to carry a copy of Title 18-Part 1- Chapter 44 926A of the federal code with you.

Some law enforcement may not know the law.

DO keep the firearm in a locked box. Keep ammo in another locked box. No ammo in Magazines or speed loaders in the trunk or if no trunk as far back in the vehicle as possible in a locked box. By NY Law if you are traveling
across the state and can legally possess the firearm where you started and where you are going you can transport it as above.

NYC is known to arrest those without a valid NYC permit to possess firearms while traveling through the New York Airports. Even trying to board an airplane with a properly cased and declared firearm can get you arrested without a valid NYC Permit to possess that firearm. See “Letter” from the United States Attorney General on the application of United States Code Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 44 § 926A. on the Interstate transportation of firearms. This should be straightened out but never forget they can arrest you any time and give you your day in court.

New York State Attorney General Office response to Congressional Inquiry on this issue:



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!!!

[rickyrick]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ 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.

[davidsog]

hich was about 5 years before Greg Revell was arrested at Newark.

Had he not turned New Jersey in a "destination" by voluntarily missing his scheduled transportation and staying overnight with access to his firearms....

He would have been protected under FOPA.

[davidsog]

You usually don’t profit by getting arrested.

That comes thru the civil suit not Title 1983 color of law as the NJ Gun club attempted.

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.

[davidsog]

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.

[davidsog]

^^^ That's not from the NY Attorney General's office, it's from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Even better.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Had he not turned New Jersey in a "destination" by voluntarily missing his scheduled transportation and staying overnight with access to his firearms....

He would have been protected under FOPA.

This is why I made certain to mention that he spent the night in a hotel on the airport property. He didn't miss his connection voluntarily, he missed it because he missed it. Such things happen with air travel. I had it happen two years ago in Dallas, on my way to the SHOT Show. But I wasn't transporting a firearm, I didn't claim my luggage (I had no idea where it was), and I slept on a bench in the airport terminal itself. I didn't consider Dallas-Fort Worth to be a "destination," and I'm sure Greg Revell didn't consider Newark, NJ, to be a "destination."

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?

[davidsog]

He didn't miss his connection voluntarily, he missed it because he missed it.

As I understand it, he missed it because he chose to go get his luggage instead of letting the Airline handle it like all the other passengers.

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.

I didn't claim my luggage (I had no idea where it was), and I slept on a bench in the airport terminal itself. I didn't consider Dallas-Fort Worth to be a "destination,"

In this case it is not a destination. You are in an "Awaiting Transportation" Status. The fact you did not claim your luggage but left it secured by the airline checked baggage procedures solidifies your protection under FOPA.

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.

Kansas a "destination" because you had to sleep?

If driving is your means of transportation...

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.

[davidsog]

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?

You have to be legal to have a firearm in both home and at the destination. I think someone traveling from New York to LA that is legal to own a gun will probably be met at the border of each state.

They probably be stopped so the states can charge admission to see this oddity and very rare beast.

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

Originally Posted by davidsog

You have to be legal to have a firearm in both home and at the destination. I think someone traveling from New York to LA that is legal to own a gun will probably be met at the border of each state.

I understand what the FOPA says. And if it means what it says AND IF stopping for the night in Kansas doesn't make Kansas into a "destination," then there is nothing to be "met" at the border of each state. However, in more than two previous discussions of the FOPA on this (and other) forums, people who know more about the law than I do have posited that the FOPA requires you to remain continuously in motion, with no overnight stops. This is clearly illogical and IMHO does not comport with the intent of the FOPA, but the Third Circuit's holding that the FOPA does not apply to travel by anything other than automobile also doesn't comport with what I believe the intent of the FOPA is. But ... they're judges, and I'm not, so at least within the states that comprise the Third Circuit their rules apply and what I think doesn't matter.

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.

[davidsog]

I understand what the FOPA says. And if it means what it says AND IF stopping for the night in Kansas doesn't make Kansas into a "destination," then there is nothing to be "met" at the border of each state.

It was a joke.

clearly stated that the court held that the FOPA only applies to travel by automobile.

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...

It is obvious that the Federal Department of Justice is crystal clear and even the state of NJ realize:

Awkwardly worded though the statute may be, it can reasonably be construed as a comprehensive defense for people traveling with firearms.

Nothing about a "just a car" despite the plain language interpretation.

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.

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.

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

Nobody is offering legal advice nor is there any legal relationship.

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.

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.

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.

[mete]

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.

[davidsog]

I wish you all would separate NY city and NY state !!

I work in NYC. That place should be separated from the rest of the planet. Where else do they think it is normal to pay 16 bucks to cross a rusty dilapidated bridge or have tourist paying cab drivers to take then out to watch the rats cross road?

[davidsog]

This is what the NRA's legal advice for traveling by air under FOPA:

Finally, the United States Department of Justice has issued a written opinion that federal law protects airline travelers with firearms, assuming: (1) the person is traveling from somewhere he or she may lawfully possess and carry a firearm; (2) en route to the airport the firearm is unloaded and inaccessible from the passenger compartment of the person’s vehicle; (3) the person transports the firearm directly from his vehicle to the airline check-in desk without any interruption in the transportation, and (4) the firearm is carried to the check-in desk unloaded and in a locked container.

Special advisory for New York & New Jersey airports: Despite federal law that protects travelers, authorities at JFK, La Guardia, Newark, and Albany airports have been known to enforce state and local firearm laws against airline travelers who are passing through their jurisdictions.
In some cases, even persons traveling in full compliance with federal law have been arrested or threatened with arrest. FOPA's protections have been substantially narrowed by court decisions in certain parts of the country, particularly in the Northeast. Persons traveling through New York and New Jersey airports may want to consider shipping their firearms to their final destinations rather than bringing them through airports in these jurisdictions.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...transportation

It looks like NYC and NJ are hellbent on turning law abiding citizens innocently traveling to other places into criminals.

[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.

[davidsog]

Maybe we're both correct.

Yes. The issue was not decided.

The reasonable man standard is what juries are instructed to consider after a trial.

Which does not prevent one from using it daily when the "this might be a problem" warning light comes on.

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

Again, Greg Revell gave up his protections under FOPA. As much as I do not agree with these liberal gun grabbers in the Northeast, the people who live there have elected and lawfully constructed their own solutions whether we agree or disagree. That is a part of being a free people.

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.

[davidsog]

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.

That is what I understood. In layman's terms, They lost on a technicality because they asked for the wrong thing for the right reasons, LOL.

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:

comprehensive defense for people traveling with firearms.

And that is how the majority of states have interpreted it. The NJ court systems recognizes a narrow interpretation of of "just automobiles" is a de facto nullification of the freedom of movement Congress meant to secure. While they may win inside the state court system, it is highly unlikely their ruling will stand once it leaves their narrow interpretation.

Only thru Political Activism from the Bench will NJ win.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Which does not prevent one from using it daily when the "this might be a problem" warning light comes on.

The goal here is to avoid being arrested. Maybe I'm a tad more risk-aversive than you, but I prefer not to pin my hopes of having a future on what a group of unknown people might decide that a hypothetical reasonable man would do when faced with a law that he knows is, at best, murky.

Originally Posted by davidsog

Again, Greg Revell gave up his protections under FOPA. As much as I do not agree with these liberal gun grabbers in the Northeast, the people who live there have elected and lawfully constructed their own solutions whether we agree or disagree. That is a part of being a free people.

Do you seriously think the Port Authority cop who made the arrest was so cognizant of the intricacies of the FOPA that he understood that Revell had [allegedly] given up his FOPA protections by claiming his luggage? I don't. He saw a guy in an airport with a gun and no NJ permit. Done.

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?

Originally Posted by davidsog

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.

Again, none of this was known to the cop who made the arrest, and I'm fairly certain in my own mind that Greg Revell did not think he had taken himself out of the realm of FOPA protection by spending a night in a hotel at the airport. He was, after all, still in transit. He was from Utah, and he was en route to Pennsylvania. He was legal to possess the handgun in both Utah and Pennsylvania.

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.

[davidsog]

since Revell knew about the FOPA, wouldn't your "reasonable man" hypothesis have suggested to him that he would be safe?

No.

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.

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.

Exactly. That is why it is a discussion!