Tea party patriots co-founder arrested on gun charges at nyc airport

[Don H]

Alaska444, it's possible that Mr. Meckler deliberately pushed the issue so that charges would be filed against him. That may have been his goal.

[maestro pistolero]

What would be interesting is for a few hundred activists who ARE in strict compliance with the FOPA to start showing up for flights at JFK, declaring firearms according to procedure, and see how many arrests ensue. They could just politely refuse to answer questions pertaining to destination, length of trip, origin, etc.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Secret Agent Man

I am assuming that Meckler's journey did begin in a state where possession is legal. Meckler is a CA resident, so that is a logical starting point for the journey. But so far there is nothing definitive on that.

But there IS something definitive on that. The reports state that he was arrested on a Thursday and had been in NYC since Sunday. I don't understand why you would assume his journey began in a state where he's legal when the available information clearly indicates that it did not. The information available to us at this time is very persuasive that he screwed up, and that the protection of the FOPA is not available to him because he didn't do his homework.

This case is NOT the same as that of Greg Revell. Revell was not traveling to Newark, NJ, and he transacted no business while he was there. Revell was in transit, and was forced to spend a night in a hotel on the airport grounds (or immediately adjacent thereto) solely because of a missed connection. Revell's overnight stay was clearly part and parcel of his trip from one place where he was legal to another place where he was legal. By contrast, Mr. Tea Party Patriot traveled TO NYC and spent several days and nights there, transacting business and meeting with people. He was not transiting through New York -- he went TO New York, and his visit to the airport was the start of a new trip to take him home from NYC.

[Alaska444]

Today, 01:54 PM #51
Don H
Senior Member

Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,314
Alaska444, it's possible that Mr. Meckler deliberately pushed the issue so that charges would be filed against him. That may have been his goal.
__________________
Don

http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

If that is true, why not fly into Boston, then NYC at the same time. Deliberate provocation in this manner, makes no sense to me. Just my opinion, but if he did it on purpose, I seriously doubt he will win this case. If speculation is all true, then his actions are clearly foolish to say the least. The best he can hope for is dismissal with a fine.

[brickeyee]

Deliberate provocation in this manner, makes no sense to me.

It gives you standing to challenge the law since it has been enforced against you.

You (generally) cannot challenge a law that has done you no harm.
You lack standing.

[Spats McGee]

Like many of you, my first thought when I read this was: "He's starting a lawsuit." It's entirely possible that he stayed in NY a couple of days for the purpose of removing FOPA from the equation. As a practical matter, he's the only one that would raise FOPA. NY has no reason to do so. However, he may think that an uncluttered "NY v. 2A" case is the way to go.

[44 AMP]

Guilty.
He went to a NY airport with an unlicensed (in NY) handgun. That part is a slam dunk. He did it, and is not contgesting that.

I don't see FOPA being applicable, based on the information given. Unless he can convince a jury that starting in one place, going to NYC, stopping for several days, and then (planning to) go to another place is a single journey.

Most folks won't see it that way. Except for an overnight stay caused by a delayed or cancelled flight, the journey stops when you leave the airport, and a second journey begins when you return to fly out. Certainly if there is several days time difference between arrival and departure, it will be considered two different trips, and FOPA will not apply.

The guy is a lawyer, and a political figure. I simply cannot believe he was unaware of the legal ramifications of his actions. If he was unaware, then I think the political system is better off without him in it.

Assuming he was aware, he certainly did violate the law. As mentioned before, this will give him "standing" to appeal all the way up the chain. He may not win, and will certainly suffer expense, incarceration, and loss of legal rights during the process. But if he does win, he will have won a victory for all of us, and should be lauded for that, and compensated for his suffering, as well.

Personally, I wish him luck.

[thallub]

FOPA does not apply here because the guy spent a couple nights in NY City. The NRA and other gun rights groups used to warn travelers about guns in luggage checked to LaGuardia, JFK and Newark. Dozens of travelers have been charged with felonies for violating NY gun law. If you get diverted to NY City and have a gun in your luggage, do not retrieve your bags.

Assuming the lawyer flew into LaGuardia, he violated the law when he retrieved his luggage. Some gun toting travelers are arrested when they retrieve their bags; more are arrested when they depart NY City by air.

Both JFK and LaGuardia come under the jurisdiction of the Queens DA. The Queens DA does not play games when it comes to violation of gun laws. If this lawyer is smart he will get himself a good NY City lawyer who will attempt a plea bargain to a misdemeanor. A felony conviction results in revocation of his license to practice law.

Below is a link to a NY City law firm that handles airport gun cases. A guy i know used that firm after he was arrested with a gun in his luggage at JFK. He was lucky enough to get a DA who allowed a plea to a misdemeanor.

Every person who might someday travel to NY City needs to read what this law firm has to say.

http://www.queensdefense.com/guns.htm#airport

[shootniron]

He walks on this. They will fine him and he will be on his way.

[HuntAndFish]

deleted OT comment.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Most folks won't see it that way. Except for an overnight stay caused by a delayed or cancelled flight, the journey stops when you leave the airport, and a second journey begins when you return to fly out. Certainly if there is several days time difference between arrival and departure, it will be considered two different trips, and FOPA will not apply.

We are on the same page as far as this guy being in the wrong, but I would argue that each journey begins when you leave wherever you slept the night before the trip, not when you get to the airport. For example, for me to fly cross country or international, since I don't care to park my car in an airport lot for a protracted period of time, a trip for me involves a taxi from my house to the limo pickup point, a 2+-hour ride from the limo terminal to the airport, and THEN I get to board an aircraft to begin my trip. On the arrival end, depending on where I'm going, I need to get from the arrival airport to the hotel by rental car, bus, subway/metro, or taxi. The "journey" encompasses all of the above, from the time I leave home until the time I arrive at the hotel where I'll be staying. The trip doesn't start when I arrive at the departure airport, and it doesn't end when I leave the departure airport.

[hermannr]

I will never fly into NYC, Newark NJ or Boston again, as a matter of fact I will not fly anywhere any more until they get rid of that TSA.

I used to (I'm retired now) fly into/through Newark mostly but also NYC and Boston a least a couple times a year, minimum. Their gun laws stink, even for a traveler. Easiest place in the world to become a felon doing nothing that is not totally legal in the rest of the US (except Chicago) I got called down for one round of .264 that was in my suit coat pocket. What a pain.

[maestro pistolero]

He walks on this. They will fine him and he will be on his way.

The liberal anti-gunners will pass on an opportunity to stick it to a gun-toting tea-party leader? I don't think so.

[shootniron]

The liberal anti-gunners will pass on an opportunity to stick it to a gun-toting tea-party leader? I don't think so.

Just hide and watch. This happens repeatedly in New York and fine and walk is the common outcome when there has been no attempt to skirt the law.

[secret_agent_man]

Fine and walk does not diminish his standing to sue on the large constitutional 2nd Amendment issue here: right to a handgun outside the home for personal protection. Cops busted the wrong guy when they took down the founder of the Tea Party Patriots, who also happens to be a licensed attorney who looks like a regular Joe, not some snake handler sleeping it off in a national park.

[MTT TL]

I don't know if he will have better lawyers than a pro football player or not.

[johnbt]

So when I took 2 weeks off from work and went on vacation I really took numerous trips and not just one? I drove to D.C., flew to London and stayed a week. Then we took the train to Edinburgh for a few days. Then we took the train to Holyrood and the ferry to Dublin for a few days. Then we flew back to Heathrow for the flight to D.C. and then we drove back to Richmond.

And here I thought we only went on one trip while I was away from the office. I told people we had a great trip. We left home and were away until we got home. A trip.

[maestro pistolero]

Yeah. The FOPA is of very limited use, and in a way, it stand as an acknowledgment, or at least an accommodation of what is clearly unconstitutional law.

If, during a long car trip, the particular state in which one reaches the point of exhaustion happens to be NY or NJ, then one must choose risking either a felony or falling asleep at the wheel. Ridiculous.

Every state must eventually have some means to accommodate 'bearing' for any non-prohibited person. But at this point, even 'keeping' is off the table in NY/NJ for more than 90% of the population. This can't be fixed soon enough.

[brickeyee]

So when I took 2 weeks off from work and went on vacation I really took numerous trips and not just one? I drove to D.C., flew to London and stayed a week. Then we took the train to Edinburgh for a few days. Then we took the train to Holyrood and the ferry to Dublin for a few days. Then we flew back to Heathrow for the flight to D.C. and then we drove back to Richmond.

FOPA is specfific about when it aplies.

From a location were possession is legal, to a destination where it is also legal.

It is silent on intermediate stops, but it implies that you may make necessary stops (gas, probably food, maybe sleep).

How YOU view your series of journeys has nothing to do with how the law may define them.

A trip of an hour to Gran's for dinner, and then returning is two journeys under FOPA.
Staying in NY City for multiple days is not a 'brief' or 'required' stop.
It was the destination for that journey, and the gun became illegal.

[MLeake]

I would think that, if he were not looking for standing for a challenge, he would have taken a trip to VT or PA at the front end, claimed to have left the firearm there; then after the stay in NYC gone back to retrieve the gun prior to going to the airport.

That would invoke FOPA.

I have to think that since he isn't trying to make such a claim, he must really be looking to challenge the NY non-resident ban.

[secret_agent_man]

one must choose risking either a felony or falling asleep at the wheel. Ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. One can travel with a gun, but can't cease traveling without committing a felony offense. It defies logic completely, and produces an absurd result.

Ridiculous is exactly what SCOTUS is going to eventually opine. State law is not going to be permitted to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right.

This cased is like Jimi Hendrix at the Monterey Pop Fest in 1967. One look, and you know it's going all the way.

[thallub]

Ridiculous is exactly what SCOTUS is going to eventually opine. State law is not going to be permitted to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right.

It's very likely SCOTUS will do no such thing. Since the lukewarm SCOTUS decision that affirmed some limited Second Amendment rights, SCOTUS has denied cert in almost every gun case that has reached it. Williams vs MD was denied cert:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ms-v-maryland/

In US vs Hayes SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of the Lautenberg amendment:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/02/25/su...irst-post-hell

[BGutzman]

Maybe hes doing it based on the 2A itself, I have no idea. Lord knows we need more lawyers to stand up to unconstitutional laws because we certainly have way to many unconstitutional gun laws.

It would be interesting to see all the restricting gun laws for each state in some kind of graphic comparison... Anyone know if such a thing exist?

[thallub]

It would be interesting to see all the restricting gun laws for each state in some kind of graphic comparison... Anyone know if such a thing exist?

This is the concealed carry reciprocity map:

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_ca...city_maps.html

[secret_agent_man]

FOPA is specfific about when it aplies. From a location were possession is legal, to a destination where it is also legal.

And anyplace in between. There must be some rational uniform standard for federal law. Each state can't have a different reckoning. Since Congress did not specify any exceptions, none apply.

The lynchpin for FOPA has to do with when does traveling end and staying begin. As most states have an established, articulated time frame in days for registering a motor vehicle in a state they are working in, that seemingly would apply as a starting point. The states are at the minimum bound by their own terms until such time as the Fed establishes a uniform nationwide standard. In either case, FOPA applies to Meckler.