New York and CCW

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

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.

So your contention is that a layman should have known that a law -- which even federal appeals courts can't agree on the meaning of -- meant that declining one mode of transportation mid-journey in favor of waiting for another mode of transportation to become available the next day automatically terminated his original journey in Newark, NJ, rather than leaving him in transit between Utah and Pennsylvania.

That, IMHO, does not pass any sort of "reasonable man" test.

What about the question of someone traveling by car and stopping for the night? Is he/she allowed to bring his/her firearms into the hotel room overnight so they can't be stolen from the car? If the gun(s) is/are brought indoors for the night, can the traveler uncase one for protection during the time he/she is in the hotel room, or do you contend that the gun(s) must remain locked up to satisfy the FOPA requirement that firearms not be readily accessible to the driver?

If the gun's being in a locked case is sufficient to satisfy the FOPA when traveling in a car that doesn't have a separate trunk ... why isn't having the gun in a locked case sufficiently UNready access for walking from curbside to the ticket counter of an airport where the gun(s) will be checked?

Does each night's stop constitute the end of that day's journey, making that hotel a "destination" and resulting in the next day's leg being a separate journey? That would mean having to plan a road trip to be certain any overnight stops are in states where your possession of a firearm is legal. Is that what the FOPA intended?

[44 AMP]

Until this thread, I always assumed that the FOPA covered all manner of travel, and I'm sure there are allowances for normal needed stops (refuel, comfort stops, etc.) without the journey being "interrupted" in the legal sense. I believe a clear obvious departure from the normal "least time" travel route IS enough to break you out of FOPA boundaries.

For example, if you're crossing NY state, east to west or west to east, and you head significantly north or south to visit someplace far outside the normal route of travel, by choice, it would be considered a destination within NY.

We don't have any kind of rule saying X miles off the least time route = leaving FOPA travel protected status, nor should we have. It should be evaluated for every individual case as needed. We can't say for certain what is, and isn't outside FOPA without clarifying court rulings, but I think we can operate on the general principle that if you need your car towed 30 miles to get it fixed, is one thing, driving 30 miles to deliver Grandma's tea service to Aunt Martha and spending the night is another.

[davidsog]

So your contention is that a layman should have known that a law -- which even federal appeals courts can't agree on the meaning of -- meant that declining one mode of transportation mid-journey in favor of waiting for another mode of transportation to become available the next day automatically terminated his original journey in Newark, NJ, rather than leaving him in transit between Utah and Pennsylvania.

That, IMHO, does not pass any sort of "reasonable man" test.

If you understand a contract of carriage it does pass a reasonable man standard. As long as Revell was covered by that contract of carriage with the airline, he was covered by FOPA.

When he missed his bus by his own choice, he nullified that contract of carriage. I am sure given the weather delays, customer service hooked him up with further travel but to be clear the airline was not under any obligation to rebook him nor does that negate the fact he legally forfeited his contract of carriage.

[davidsog]

Until this thread, I always assumed that the FOPA covered all manner of travel, and I'm sure there are allowances for normal needed stops (refuel, comfort stops, etc.) without the journey being "interrupted" in the legal sense. I believe a clear obvious departure from the normal "least time" travel route IS enough to break you out of FOPA boundaries.

For example, if you're crossing NY state, east to west or west to east, and you head significantly north or south to visit someplace far outside the normal route of travel, by choice, it would be considered a destination within NY.

We don't have any kind of rule saying X miles off the least time route = leaving FOPA travel protected status, nor should we have. It should be evaluated for every individual case as needed. We can't say for certain what is, and isn't outside FOPA without clarifying court rulings, but I think we can operate on the general principle that if you need your car towed 30 miles to get it fixed, is one thing, driving 30 miles to deliver Grandma's tea service to Aunt Martha and spending the night is another.
________________

I think you are absolutely right and exhibit some good common "reasonable man standard" sense.

[davidsog]

AB I think we can all agree on some things.

Mr Revell is not a criminal or someone who is a threat to society. That is the tragedy of New York and New Jersey's draconian gun laws.

In spirit they violate the 2nd Amendment, IMHO. The laws seek to limit firearms in general instead of accomplishing their set goal of reducing violent crime.

The state of New Jersey is trying to turned Mr Revell, a law abiding citizen into in a criminal. I do not believe there was any malice or intent on Mr Revell's part. Most likely he was just sick and tired of dealing with New York/Newark air travel delays and wanted to protect his property. He was ignorant of the specifics. That is no excuse under the law.

To prove criminality though, once must have means, motive, and opportunity. He had the means and opportunity to violate FOPA. He even had a motive to violate the law because he needed some sleep. He did violate FOPA.

The guns laws of states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Chicago are not stopping criminals but rather ensnaring law abiding citizens creating criminals.

Simple comparison of a State without restrictive gun laws vs draconian gun laws of New Jersey.

Miami FL has just over twice the population of Newark New Jersey. You have a 1 in 114 chance of being a victim of violent crime in Miami. In Newark New Jersey, you have a 1 in 105 chance of being a victim.

It is obvious that the draconian gun laws are not working to deter violence.

Congress was very specific and in prosecution of FOPA violations:

Criminal prosecution would require proof of a willful violation.

https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Hardy-FOPA.pdf

Wilful intent is a very high standard that must be proven in order to prosecute a violation.

That means:

A party’s intention to knowingly and deliberately act or refrain from acting in a particular manner or to achieve a particular result.

While Mr Revell most certainly violated FOPA, I do not think he did it "knowingly and deliberately". There was no willful intent.

While it does pass a reasonable man standard that Mr Revell broke the law. You cannot argue that he did not.

It is very difficult for a reasonable person to conclude under the higher standard of willful intent that his violation should be prosecuted.

The State of New Jersey would have to prove that Mr Revell:

knowing it’s wrong to do so and intentionally ignoring the consequences of those acts.

So I would ask the State of New Jersey where is the evidence of Mr Revell willful intent?

In otherwords, the Justices invalidate Mr Revells claim that he kept his guns and ammunition locked up in this hotel stay. Under the standards for prosecution Congress clearly lays out, Mr Revell does not have to prove that he kept his guns locked up.....the State of New Jersey has to have definitive proof he did not keep them locked up.

Under FOPA Mr Revell is allowed to move his bags from his car to the airport in the same condition he had them in his hotel. New Jersey cannot deal in conjecture on this point or speculation. They must prove he took them out of that transportable condition.

Once more, they must prove he left the airport with a deliberate intent to violate the law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Once more, they must prove he left the airport with a deliberate intent to violate the law.

Which may be why they ultimately decided not to prosecute. They may have thought they would lose, and they didn't want to set a precedent by suffering an acquittal in a very public trial.

Which means, once again, that the issue has not been adjudicated, even at the trial court level. But Greg Revell still spent a weekend in jail, with a number of rather unseemly companions, was forced to receive inoculations that may or may not have been in his best interest but which were S.O.P. for that jail system, and spent many thousands of dollars on defense attorneys and related expenses. All to result in no trial. This brings us back to something I posted early in this thread: "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

This discussion began with a gentleman asking specifically if he would be safe transporting a handgun from Pennsylvania through the airport in Buffalo, NY, on his way back home from Pennsylvania. Despite the D.O.J. letter of 2005 you produced a copy of, at least two people native to upstate NY report -- in this discussion -- that the police in Buffalo routinely bust people for traveling with a handgun if they don't have a NY permit. And NY does not issue non-resident permits.

Ergo: regardless of whether I agree with your view on the FOPA or you agree with my view on the FOPA, the consensus seems to be that the OP is not safe flying through Buffalo with a handgun. IMHO, the rest of this discussion belongs in the parallel discussion on constitutional issues -- which has now been closed by the moderators.

[spacemanspiff]

How did the OP go from being 'licensed to carry concealed in 46 states' to: "I currently have eleven CCW permits and plan to travel to Pennsylvania to get my twelfth"?

[davidsog]

How did the OP go from being 'licensed to carry concealed in 46 states' to: "I currently have eleven CCW permits and plan to travel to Pennsylvania to get my twelfth"?

I was wondering where he is traveling too. It looks like his question is can he travel to Buffalo NY as a destination from Pennsylvania.

[44 AMP]

I understood the OP to ask "can I legally drive from Penn, with the pistol properly stored for transport, to the Buffalo NY airport, and fly out from there?"

TO which, I believe the answer is no.

Because he does not possess a valid NY permit for the pistol. NY LEO's need look no further than this. Without the valid permit, the gun is not legal, a law has been broken, an arrest can (and almost certainly WILL) be made, and everything else is for the DA, lawyers and the courts to figure out.

No state that requires a permit or license wants unpermitted people wandering about their state with pistols. Some states enforcement of this is "on the harsh side of strict"...

FOPA essentially suspends the state's definition of "possession" as long as you are travelling through a state, however as this thread shows, there are a lot of possible situations where one person's idea of "through" is at odds with the governments definitions.

The "contract carrier" was brought up. When flying, taking the bus, or train, They are the possessor of the pistol (checked baggage) so the owner is not violating state laws when passing through, as he doesn't "possess" the pistol within the state. UNLESS he does, buy obtaining the pistol back from the carrier.

When driving through, you are the contract carrier, under FOPA, as long as the gun meets FOPA standards for transportation (not accessible to you) and you don't do anything not required to travel THROUGH the state.


However, if you do something that removes you from FOPA rules, then the laws of the state you are physically in take over.

These are GENERAL principles and individual cases may test or even overturn some things. A good practice is that if you are considering an action and someone can make a reasonable case that doing so could violate some laws, its probably a good idea not to do it.

I think driving from out of state to the Buffalo airport with an unpermitted pistol would break NY law.

I wouldn't do it, but if you want to be the test case, go right ahead. We'll watch...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

I was wondering where he is traveling too. It looks like his question is can he travel to Buffalo NY as a destination from Pennsylvania.

That isn't the question at all.

Post #14:

Originally Posted by Troop362

When I leave Pennsylvania I plan to drive to Buffalo NY to fly home. I will be carrying a licensed Sig P239 that I would like to return to San Diego with at the end of my trip.

[davidsog]

Ok

Post #14:

Thanks. Nothing like Bottom Line Up Front and not burying your question in the middle of thread, LOL.

He wants to drive from Pennsylvania to Buffalo NY to catch a plane to San Diego?

If he is legal to own the pistol in Pennsylvania and legal to own it in San Diego the he should be protected by FOPA.

Aguila Blanca is right though in that he is taking a risk just because he is in the New York/New Jersey area. I would call the airline and confirm their traveling with firearms rules and make a good assessment of your travel plans to ensure you will be "uninterrupted" if he decides to take that risk.

[mikejonestkd]

If he is legal to own the pistol in Pennsylvania and legal to own it in San Diego the he should be protected by FOPA.

FOPA protection is a possible avenue that his defense lawyer can claim after he is arrested...….

After he is arrested, let that sink in for a minute.

[44 AMP]

He wants to drive from Pennsylvania to Buffalo NY to catch a plane to San Diego?

If he is legal to own the pistol in Pennsylvania and legal to own it in San Diego the he should be protected by FOPA.

He SHOULD be, but we don't know that he will be. Again, it is the specifics that could make the difference.

Consider this, an argument can be made that his trip from PA into NY is not necessary. He is willfully crossing into a state where his pistol isn't legal, when he has no need to do so. Airplanes do fly from PA to CA. He could (and probably ought to) fly out of PA where he is legal to CA where he is legal.

The reason he's going to Buffalo would be for his convenience, not for necessity. The law doesn't care if it is more expensive to fly from PA, or if it would mean not flying on the day you WANT to, or that you might have to drive twice as far to get to the airport, all the law cares about is the law, and your actions in regard to the law.

It might even be possible he could check his pistol with the airline in PA, (early enough before flying so it can be shipped to Buffalo to travel with the rest of his baggage) then drive to Buffalo and board the plane, completely in the clear, legally.

I think it quite likely that a court could deny a FOPA defense for the reasons stated above.

OF course, there's always the Appeals process...

[davidsog]

He SHOULD be, but we don't know that he will be. Again, it is the specifics that could make the difference.

Yes, he is taking a risk going thru New York or New Jersey.

[FITASC]

He should just plan on flying out of Pittsburg

[L2R]

Several topics these days here could read, "50 shades of Law"
Nothing is ever black or white, true or false.


People should have every right to travel with the ability to defend themselves.
It get the whole (not in a plane thing) but after you land.

But for now, it doesn't make sense to be a beta tester.