H.R. 131 Interstate Transportation

HotMetal · January 19, 2015, 09:52 AM

What is the likelihood that Virginia republican, Rep. Griffith's sponsored bill, H.R. 131, will pass the House and move on to the Senate? The proposed federal legislation addresses the interstate transportation of firearms.

http://www.nraila.org/articles/20150...ill-introduced.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 19, 2015, 10:18 AM

My guess is that it may pass the House but it will be a hard sell in the Senate. I hope I'm wrong -- the obvious flaws and shortcomings in the FOPA clearly need to be addressed and corrected.

HotMetal · January 19, 2015, 10:21 AM

Amen!

BarryLee · January 19, 2015, 10:24 AM

If it did pass the Senate I suspect the President would veto it and I doubt there would be enough votes to override the veto.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 19, 2015, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryLee

If it did pass the Senate I suspect the President would veto it and I doubt there would be enough votes to override the veto.

Agreed, overcoming the almost certain presidential veto is the sticky wicket, and a major hurdle to be overcome.

HotMetal · January 19, 2015, 10:33 AM

It's a rhetorical question, but how can we have an EXISTING federal law and it be ignored by some? Then hope that a second federal law is passed to enforce the first!

**Tom Servo** · January 19, 2015, 01:24 PM

This was one of the carrots Manchin and Toomey waved in our face to make "universal background checks" seem more palatable last year. We rejected it. The opposition will probably mention that.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 19, 2015, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotMetal

It's a rhetorical question, but how can we have an EXISTING federal law and it be ignored by some? Then hope that a second federal law is passed to enforce the first!

The proposed new law isn't intended to enforce the first, it's intended to fix the first. If you read the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), it's clear that it was rushed together at the last minute by someone or someones who had good intentions but didn't think beyond the end of their nose. Irrespective of what the legislative intent was, the actual language is clearly based on travel by personal automobile, and it doesn't take into account long trips.

For example, as mention in the NRA article, overnight stops. It's possible to drive from New York to Florida without stopping to sleep for a night -- but it's not wise. It's certainly not possible to do it without stopping for gasoline, rest room use, and food. Nothing in the existing FOPA specifically says such actions are illegal, but nothing says they're legal, either. Suppose you do stop for a night at a motel just off the interstate. Your guns and ammo are locked up in the trunk of your car, in accordance with the law. What do you do with them while you're sleeping? If you leave them in the car, they could be stolen. If you bring them into the motel room, you may be violating some obscure state law.

Look what happened to Greg Revell. He was flying from somewhere (Utah?) to his home in Pennsylvania, with a change of planes at Newark (NJ) airport. His arriving flight was late, he missed the connection, and he had to spend the night in a hotel. An AIRPORT hotel, on the grounds of the airport. His luggage was there, so he took his luggage, which contained a properly declared firearm, to the hotel room rather than leave it on the carousel overnight. The next morning, when he tried to follow the laws and declare the firearm for the next leg of his trip, the ticket agent called a cop, and Mr. Revell was arrested because he didn't have a NJ permit to possess a firearm.

That's the sort of situation that the FOPA certainly was intended to cover, but because it isn't specifically and explicitly addressed, anti-gun jurisdictions ignore the FOPA and apply their draconian local laws to people who are legitimately engaged in interstate travel. That's what needs to be fixed. And the fix also needs to make it clear that the FOPA applies not only to private automobiles but also to air travel, rail travel, and bus travel. It also has to make it clear that we are not required to drive non-stop from Eastport, Maine, to San Diego, California, if we want to comply with the law.

carguychris · January 19, 2015, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

...the fix also needs to make it clear that the FOPA applies not only to private automobiles but also to air travel, rail travel, and bus travel.

Let's not forget hiking, hitchhiking, boating, or bicycling. These methods of travel make it very unlikely that a traveler will be able to cross an entire state without a stop for food, water, or rest. While they're not common means of interstate travel, a traveler shouldn't have to lose his/her 2A rights based on choosing them.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 19, 2015, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carguychris

Let's not forget hiking, hitchhiking, boating, or bicycling. These methods of travel make it very unlikely that a traveler will be able to cross an entire state without a stop for food, water, or rest. While they're not common means of interstate travel, a traveler shouldn't have to lose his/her 2A rights based on choosing them.

I think you're conflating two separate (but obviously related) issues. The whole point of the FOPA is to allow someone who can legally possess a firearm in State A and who can legally possess a firearm in State E to traverse states B, C, and D with the firearm(s) even if the traveler is not otherwise legally allowed to possess a firearm in states B, C, or D.

Boating might be a valid consideration. IMHO, neither hiking nor bicycling are -- as far as the FOPA is concerned. If someone who lives in Georgia has an aunt who lives in Maine, he or she isn't going to say, "Hey, we haven't seen Aunt Bertha in ages, and she's not getting any younger. What do you say we take a hike up the Appalachian Trail to pay her a visit?" On the other hand, I know any number of people who have hiked sections of the Appalachian Trail, not as a form of transportation from one state to another (although I have crossed state lines on the Trail -- I think) but as a form of recreation unto itself. Once you start talking about losing Second Amendment rights, you're not discussing interstate transport as much as you're discussing bearing arms while passing through multiple jurisdictions.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm a 2A originalist and I think we should be allowed to carry pretty much everywhere, without a permit. But that's a Second Amendment argument, NOT a FOPA argument. The FOPA is not about bearing arms or about self-defense -- it's about getting from Point A to Point B with an unloaded gun in your luggage.

January 19, 2015, 09:52 AM	#1
HotMetal Member Join Date: March 27, 2005 Location: Mid-Atlantic Posts: 57	H.R. 131 Interstate Transportation What is the likelihood that Virginia republican, Rep. Griffith's sponsored bill, H.R. 131, will pass the House and move on to the Senate? The proposed federal legislation addresses the interstate transportation of firearms. http://www.nraila.org/articles/20150...ill-introduced. __________________ Restraint!

January 19, 2015, 10:21 AM	#3
HotMetal Member Join Date: March 27, 2005 Location: Mid-Atlantic Posts: 57	Amen! __________________ Restraint!

January 19, 2015, 10:24 AM	#4
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	If it did pass the Senate I suspect the President would veto it and I doubt there would be enough votes to override the veto. __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

January 19, 2015, 10:33 AM	#6
HotMetal Member Join Date: March 27, 2005 Location: Mid-Atlantic Posts: 57	It's a rhetorical question, but how can we have an EXISTING federal law and it be ignored by some? Then hope that a second federal law is passed to enforce the first! __________________ Restraint!

January 19, 2015, 01:24 PM	#7
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	This was one of the carrots Manchin and Toomey waved in our face to make "universal background checks" seem more palatable last year. We rejected it. The opposition will probably mention that. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

January 19, 2015, 10:18 AM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,476	My guess is that it may pass the House but it will be a hard sell in the Senate. I hope I'm wrong -- the obvious flaws and shortcomings in the FOPA clearly need to be addressed and corrected.