NYS has officially decided not to recognize FOPA


PDA






tfurey19
July 30, 2004, 03:23 PM
Apparently if you fly into NY FOR ANY REASON with a pistol you will be arrested no matter how the pistol is packed and regardless of purpose.

NYS is no longer regognizing the Firearm Owner's Protection Act

The following was just released from the NRA:

From NRA:

The District Attorney in Albany County and Queens 18 months ago issued an order to arrest anyone coming through the airports with a handgun in their luggage, regardless if the handgun was being transported properly by FAA regulations. The criteria is if you do not have a NY license, you are charged. So what's happening is 2 different scenarios:

1. People are flying into New York from other states, most but not all of whom have carry permits from their home states, and are carrying a pistol. When they go to fly home, they declare the gun, which has always been unloaded and locked up properly in their checked luggage, but if they cannot produce a NY license, they are promptly charged with illegal weapon possession, and their gun confiscated forever. (The Albany airport sheriff has been doing it as a lower class misdemeanor, the LaGuardia cases were charged as a felony.) As their home state permit is not reciprocal, and they were in NY state for an amount of time carrying a handgun, this group is screwed.

2. People are DRIVING to the airport from another state where the NY airport is their closest one to fly out of, and are getting popped right off the bat an hour or two from their home. In these cases, we are going to war for them being covered by FOPA, even the Sheriff's office and TSA in Albany have argued over that with the DA, but he won't budge. He did, however, blink on the two cases from Albany, with the people getting a walk. Didn't get their guns back, though, either time.

Bottom line, UNLESS you are in possession of a VALID New York pistol license, DO NOT bring a handgun in your luggage to the airport, you will be charged.

This is not being done in any other state in the country except at Logan international in Boston, (same thing there) but even at O'Hare in Illinois, if you come in from another state and meet FAA guidelines, they feel you are covered by FOPA and off you go a happy camper.

If you enjoyed reading about "NYS has officially decided not to recognize FOPA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
July 30, 2004, 03:28 PM
Does that mean people in NY can build machineguns again? Since they won't recognize one part of FOPA they shouldn't recognize the rest either.

Why does this behavior not surprise me? klinton did it as well by ordering ATF to violate the FOPA by keeping records of approved NICS checks. Yet he expects gun manufacturers to respect the MG ban.

:cuss: :banghead: :fire:

mpthole
July 30, 2004, 03:31 PM
:barf: :fire: :cuss:

citizen
July 30, 2004, 03:43 PM
....bureaucratic evil self-preservation in it's most vile form.........:cuss:

Wildalaska
July 30, 2004, 03:43 PM
Its just a quick trip to the Fed Courthouse to fix that one...

WildinsteadofchildishsmiliesdosomethingAlaska

Carlos Cabeza
July 30, 2004, 04:34 PM
Concealed means concealed !

mpthole
July 30, 2004, 04:45 PM
Its just a quick trip to the Fed Courthouse to fix that one... And lost time and lost money for the person that is having their firearm illegally confiscated and being illegally detained by the government.

Concealed means concealed! I don't think its a matter of carrying properly concealed. Its when it gets declared at the airport in your checked bags, or when you land.

I just checked NRA's website and couldn't find any info substantiating tfurey19 original post. If anyone can provide a link, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

tfurey - link please?

Sindawe
July 30, 2004, 04:51 PM
In the pocket book, and the bottom line of businesses and services based in New York State. Boycott 'em, and let 'em know WHY they are being boycotted.

Zrex
July 30, 2004, 06:07 PM
So this means that if I am flying from say.... Texas to Vermont and the plane gets diverted to an airport in NY due to weather or mechanical problems or all air traffic being grounded, then I can be arrested, charged with a felony and have my property confiscated?

El Tejon
July 30, 2004, 06:42 PM
Zrex, yes!:(

Wild's right. NRA needs to spike this rubbish righting f-----g now!!!:fire:

Wildalaska
July 30, 2004, 07:00 PM
And lost time and lost money for the person that is having their firearm illegally confiscated and being illegally detained by the government.

OK listen up commandos...stop with the :cuss: :fire: :banghead: and finally put yer time (not money) where yer mouths are..

One of you get your wordy processor out and do a Federal Complaint asking for the two DAs to be enjoined and restrained from any prosecutions, for standing indicate ya wanna travel to NY via the airport and they are violating your rights under the FOPA...

Get creative, add a cause of action under 42USC 1983 too, ask for damages

File in in court, send copy to the NRA and ask for them to help..

Send a cc to me with a recipt for the filing fee and I will reimburse ya for it

And if somnething aint done by next year when I fly back east maybe I will do it.,.

But since Im not the one who whines on message boards (if something excites me I try to get it fixed) about every beuraucratic bit of jerk off tomfoolery, If Im forced to do something you guys wuill never hear the end of it

:D

WildeasywinAlaska

boofus
July 30, 2004, 07:08 PM
I'd rather the FOPA be null and void and be able to manufacture and register new MGs in NY. :D

Ironbarr
July 30, 2004, 07:33 PM
How about some links/citations/letters... etc. something we can look at... not a flame, just want to know we're on solid footing.

Thanks.

-Andy

captain obvious
July 30, 2004, 07:43 PM
The last time something like this (nullification) happened, didn't a couple of states get burned to the ground?

Wildalaska
July 30, 2004, 08:08 PM
The last time something like this (nullification) happened, didn't a couple of states get burned to the ground?

Well thats just a helpful comment isnt it:mad:

WildicantwinAlaska

Kharn
July 30, 2004, 08:12 PM
Somebody's gonna find themselves in a world of hurt if the DOJ/Ashcroft decide to enforce the FOPA against NY.

Boofus:
Read up on the FOPA before you say that...

Kharn

armoredman
July 30, 2004, 08:34 PM
WildAlaska, good luck in court. If I had an extra dime, I'd send you one, but two guns are already in the hock shop, and the last is getting dangerously close. I can tell by your marvelously controlled temper that you are man of advanced maturity, and well capable of taking care of the business us young, irresponsable pups, cannot. Thanky you for your genrous offer, and I again wish you the best of luck, while I remain in Free Arizona....where this hogwash doesn't happen.

Ironbarr
July 30, 2004, 09:03 PM
The FOPA Summary - scroll down to text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:SN00049:@@@L&summ2=m&|TOM:/bss/d099query.html|

'Course you'll have to read the NFA for fit, then check the USC in a dozen or more locations no doubt to get it all.

That's the way things get hidden, lost - or rewritten by "people who rewrite things". Tough finding just the right item for a defense when it's 12 paragraphs down on the 512th page of this sized type.

-Andy

Wildalaska
July 30, 2004, 09:03 PM
I can tell by your marvelously controlled temper that you are man of advanced maturity, and well capable of taking care of the business us young, irresponsable pups, cannot.

Appreciate the compliment, never fear you too will not be irresponsible some day:D

I again wish you the best of luck, while I remain in Free Arizona....where this hogwash doesn't happen.

Well hopefully you will never need to fly to LaGuardia Airport..

WildillswitchtonewarkAlaska

tcsd1236
July 31, 2004, 01:33 PM
1. People are flying into New York from other states, most but not all of whom have carry permits from their home states, and are carrying a pistol. When they go to fly home, they declare the gun, which has always been unloaded and locked up properly in their checked luggage, but if they cannot produce a NY license, they are promptly charged with illegal weapon possession, and their gun confiscated forever. (The Albany airport sheriff has been doing it as a lower class misdemeanor, the LaGuardia cases were charged as a felony.) As their home state permit is not reciprocal, and they were in NY state for an amount of time carrying a handgun, this group is screwed.........

Problem being that FOPA covers travel THROUGH one state to another. If their final destination is NYS, they need to be properly licensed in NYS to possess while in NYS. If they fly into NY and then later LEAVE NYS with that gun, they obviously haven't been travelling THROUGH NYS as per FOPA, they have been IN NYS for that period of time without the required permit. Unless they wer eengaged in one of the permit- exempted activities listed in the law, they'll find themselves in a jam.

I would love to see NYS recognize other states' permits, but I don't see it happening.

We just had a similar situation, although not entirely the same scenario: we arrested a woman who was a NYS resident who was trying to fly out of our airport with a handgun and no permit. WHY someone would try to do that when they know a permit is required, who knows. Anyway, she was arrested.

CaesarI
August 1, 2004, 04:00 PM
I could not corroborate this story either. Can someone please provide a source?

-Morgan

Chris Rhines
August 1, 2004, 06:34 PM
To expand somewhat on Wildalaska's rant -

It is my (laymans) understanding that in order to have standing to petition the court, you have to be able to indicate that damages have already taken place. This will probably require, at a minimum, a petitioner that has already fallen afoul of this new directive. This may not be the case - if there is a lawyer around who can shed some light, I'm sure we'd all be indebted.

As an aside - I'll ask one of my buddies at the NRA-ILA, but from the inital post it sure sounds like the NRA is already actively involved in this one. If so, good on them.

Anyhow, Wild, I can speak to my attorney tomorrow and find out if my status as an uninvolved Maryland resident precludes me from petitioning a New York state court. If not, I'd be more than happy to write up such a petition.

- Chris

JimJD
August 1, 2004, 07:32 PM
Another reason on why I might not move back to NY.

I have to contact the NRA on this one. Maybe some of the "officials" up in NY to boot.
What is it with NY and California? The water? The air? Oh...wait...it's all of the commie-pinko-liberals who voted them in.

Sorry about that last one. I just get a little upset when I think about all of the B.S. I had to deal with up there.
*sigh*
Oh New York... what happened to You? :( :confused:

Sergeant Bob
August 1, 2004, 08:00 PM
I did some searching and all I could find about the subject was a post on Packing.org forums by tfurey19 on the subject (identical to the post here), and a copy of the same at the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (unattributed).

Packing.org (http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/9745/)

NYSRPA.org (http://www.nysrpa.org/airportwarning.htm)

deej
August 1, 2004, 08:09 PM
As their home state permit is not reciprocal, and they were in NY state for an amount of time carrying a handgun, this group is screwed.
...

they feel you are covered by FOPA and off you go a happy camper.



Not that I'm doubting that NYS/NYC would behave in such a manner, but I haven't seen many NRA releases that say "screwed" and "happy camper."

Can anyone confirm this directly with NRA?

Sergeant Bob
August 1, 2004, 08:23 PM
Not that I'm doubting that NYS/NYC would behave in such a manner, but I haven't seen many NRA releases that say "screwed" and "happy camper."
I think those were his personal comments. I think he just failed to separate them from the body of the text.

deej
August 1, 2004, 08:40 PM
No, the wording is identical here:

http://www.nysrpa.org/airportwarning.htm

Sergeant Bob
August 1, 2004, 08:57 PM
No, the wording is identical here:

As it is identical to the wording of his post at the Packing.org forums. It appears he just did a cut-n-paste here.

In either case, all we know is it is something which was posted on a forum, without any sources linked.

Poodleshooter
August 2, 2004, 02:45 PM
We just had a similar situation, although not entirely the same scenario: we arrested a woman who was a NYS resident who was trying to fly out of our airport with a handgun and no permit. WHY someone would try to do that when they know a permit is required, who knows. Anyway, she was arrested
I've run into 2 or 3 people in NYS who have no idea that permits are required for them to own their handguns. Most of them are out of staters who move there and simply don't even think about moving pieces of their own personal property into their new state of residence. It's likely that many gunowners,even in NYS, have no idea that these laws exist. That's presumably the case with many of these fliers.

tcsd1236
August 5, 2004, 03:51 PM
I've run into 2 or 3 people in NYS who have no idea that permits are required for them to own their handguns. Most of them are out of staters who move there and simply don't even think about moving pieces of their own personal property into their new state of residence. It's likely that many gunowners,even in NYS, have no idea that these laws exist. That's presumably the case with many of these fliers.

I have met a few of the uninformed, recently-moved-to-NY types as well. We understand that that sort of lack of knowledge may occur, and what we usually do is hold the handgun(s) til the person applies for and receives a permit, as is authorized under NY law.

Drjones
August 5, 2004, 04:47 PM
And in other news, I no longer recognize New York's claim as a member of the United States of America.


Gonna go look for a 49-star flag now.....

hammer4nc
August 5, 2004, 05:00 PM
...what we usually do is hold the handgun(s) til the person applies for and receives a permit...

Just wondering, are there cases where the person is NOT federally disabled from owning guns, yet is declined by NYS? What do you do then? Prosecute him or just keep his guns for yourself (as authorized under NY law, of course :scrutiny: )?

tcsd1236
August 5, 2004, 06:59 PM
Just wondering, are there cases where the person is NOT federally disabled from owning guns, yet is declined by NYS? What do you do then? Prosecute him or just keep his guns for yourself (as authorized under NY law, of course )?

Yes, there are MANY people who are denied permits for offenses such as DWIs , offenses which don't fall within the Federal restrictions.

The person has a year in which to obtain a permit. If they do not obtain the permit within that year, the weapon can be deemed a nuisance firearm and destroyed. We haven't been keeping to that timetable at TCSD; earlier this year we went through the stuff we were hanging onto ( some for up to 10 years...wayyyy over the specified time ) and disposed of anything that we'd had for quite some time and were unable to locate the lawful owner. If the person doesn't have a permit, they have 3 options:

have us hold the firearm while they get the permit ( as I mentioned already)

transfer the firearm to someone that DOES have a permit or

transfer the firearm to an FFL.

ctdonath
August 6, 2004, 12:33 PM
This has NOTHING to do with FOPA.

The relevant rule is simple, nothing has changed (except less leniency):
You must have a NY firearms permit to possess a firearm in NY. (BTW: a "firearm" is legally defined as a handgun, SBR, SBS, AOW, or MG. In NY, a rifle or shotgun is not a "firearm".)

All they're doing is arresting people who they find possess a handgun without the corresponding NY CCW permit. NY does not have reciprocity with any other state.

This has NOTHING to do with FOPA. FOPA only applies when travelling through a state, with the gun unloaded & locked and with ammo locked in a separate case, all in the luggage area, and you don't stop for anything other than gas (even potty breaks are not allowed). FOPA (as relevant here) refers only to continuous passage thru a state.

What NY is cracking down on is people who are not just passing through. If one's destination is in NY, or one is changing modes of transport in NY (ex.: drive in, get on plane, fly out), FOPA does not apply under these conditions.

I'm not apologizing for NY's behavior in this case. It sucks, and violates both the 2nd Amendment and NY Civil Rights law. Just trying to clarify what is going on: this is not a FOPA issue, even though at a glance it may look like one.

EOD Guy
August 6, 2004, 01:35 PM
This has NOTHING to do with FOPA. FOPA only applies when travelling through a state, with the gun unloaded & locked and with ammo locked in a separate case, all in the luggage area, and you don't stop for anything other than gas (even potty breaks are not allowed). FOPA (as relevant here) refers only to continuous passage thru a state.

What NY is cracking down on is people who are not just passing through. If one's destination is in NY, or one is changing modes of transport in NY (ex.: drive in, get on plane, fly out), FOPA does not apply under these conditions.

I would like to know where you got your interpretation of FOPA. The law makes no mention of continuous passage or of prohibiting any type of stops as long as the firearms and ammunition stay locked up properly. You may be right about the change in mode of transportation although it is not prohibited by FOPA. The requirement to keep the firearm in a locked container in the transport vehicle makes the transition from one mode to another problematic.

tcsd1236
August 6, 2004, 02:03 PM
I would like to know where you got your interpretation of FOPA. The law makes no mention of continuous passage or of prohibiting any type of stops as long as the firearms and ammunition stay locked up properly. You may be right about the change in mode of transportation although it is not prohibited by FOPA. The requirement to keep the firearm in a locked container in the transport vehicle makes the transition from one mode to another problematic.

Aside from FOPA, you have NYS laws which dictate how a non-resident can transport or bring firearms into NYS.

EOD Guy
August 6, 2004, 02:09 PM
Aside from FOPA, you have NYS laws which dictate how a non-resident can transport or bring firearms into NYS.

FOPA should trump NYS law as long as you begin and end in other states and are only transitioning NY. NYS law would apply if you begin or end in NY.

ctdonath
August 6, 2004, 03:18 PM
The "Safe Passage Act" part of FOPA is here (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+528+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28926A%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20).

Amounts to:
if you are travelling from a legal-possession location to another legal-possession location, you can pass thru non-legal-possession locations so long as it remains unloaded and locked up and inaccessable.

If you stop in NY while in possession, FOPA doesn't apply. There is no exception made, even for gas or potty breaks. If the destination is in NY, you're not travelling through (i.e.: your destination is a non-legal-possession location) - so FOPA doesn't apply. If you come to NY just to fly out, you'll have to open the locked case for inspection - so FOPA doesn't apply.

FOPA only applies when you continuously travel through the state without stopping therein. The issue in question is targeting people who do stop. The law is very precise about this, and very harsh (and very unconstitutional).

EOD Guy
August 6, 2004, 03:54 PM
If you stop in NY while in possession, FOPA doesn't apply. There is no exception made, even for gas or potty breaks. If the destination is in NY, you're not travelling through (i.e.: your destination is a non-legal-possession location) - so FOPA doesn't apply. If you come to NY just to fly out, you'll have to open the locked case for inspection - so FOPA doesn't apply.

There is absolutely nothing in the law that prohibits normal rest stops or that requires continuous travel without stopping. The law itself does not appear to allow a change in mode as you stated.

ctdonath
August 6, 2004, 04:32 PM
There is absolutely nothing in the law that permits normal rest stops or that allows stopping.

There is nothing drawing a dividing line between "travel" and "not travel", short of the obvious "in continuous motion" (presumably allowing for stop lights/signs). There is no defined distinction between:
- stopping for gas
- plus potty break
- plus walking the dog
- plus getting lunch
- plus taking a nap
- plus shopping
- plus spending the night
- plus visiting Mom
- etc.

The law allows for transportation from place to place, so long as possession is legal in both. Under what conditions is a third intermediate place - where possession is not legal - recognized as creating an actionable offense? The law is grossly unclear on this, and NY is taking it as far as possible: if you're in NY and a cop becomes aware you're in possession sans permit, you are in a third intermediate place unlawfully possessing, and FOPA does not apply. Short of invoking the 2nd Amendment or clarifying "transporting" in the law, we're stuck with NY's behavior being legally acceptable.

Remember, application of FOPA in this case is designed to override existing prohibitions - unfortunately, it does a poor job of deliniating what conditions permit the override. In this case, falling thru the legal cracks (like stopping for a sit-down at Burger King) leaves you with prohibitions, not freedoms.

Ironbarr
January 20, 2005, 08:50 PM
Sounds like an old-fashioned speed trap except we'd have call it a stop trap.

.

citizen
January 20, 2005, 09:42 PM
...I've lost, and re-gained interest in this thread.
Traveling by plane to nyc, then changing mode (car, bus, etc) for otherwise inaccessible destination OUTSIDE nys is illegal?????!!!!!!!(while transporting f/a)

Ironbarr
January 20, 2005, 09:57 PM
According to what we've been reading here - yes. Try Newark... oops, that might be worse, or at least the same but different. Vermont? :rolleyes:

-AndyB

G1FAL
January 21, 2005, 12:59 AM
Yet another reason for me to never even consider going to New York.

Not much else I can do, I already lump them in the same category with Kommiefornia: If I want to buy something, and the company thats selling it is from New York or Kommiefornia, I look for it somewhere else. No, its not accomplishing much, but at least the socialist scum in the statehouse there arent getting any of my money in the form of taxes they "collect" from their victims...er, I meant subjects....no no, CITIZENS.

DMF
January 21, 2005, 01:19 AM
One of you get your wordy processor out and do a Federal Complaint asking for the two DAs to be enjoined and restrained from any prosecutions, for standing indicate ya wanna travel to NY via the airport and they are violating your rights under the FOPA... WA, as you've said to me before, please dont insert a knowledge of the law into a chicken little argument. ;) http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1453831&highlight=law+knowledge#post1453831

Graystar
January 21, 2005, 04:48 AM
Traveling by plane to nyc, then changing mode (car, bus, etc) for otherwise inaccessible destination OUTSIDE nys is illegal?????!!!!!!!(while transporting f/a)Yes, just like any other state that makes a crime of possessing a firearm.

So this means that if I am flying from say.... Texas to Vermont and the plane gets diverted to an airport in NY due to weather or mechanical problems or all air traffic being grounded, then I can be arrested, charged with a felony and have my property confiscated?Only if you take possession of your luggage. If the airline is forcing you to take your luggage, find a terminal official and explain the situation. The terminal should be able to hold your luggage for you. You’ll never have to check in the luggage.


I'm with ctdonath...this has nothing to do with 18USC926A.

18USC926A neither allows nor prohibits stops while transporting. It simply says,
...shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm...It would be left to a jury to determine if the particulars of your travels constitute either continuing travel or having reached a destination. Stopping for the night to rest at a hotel would probably constitute continuing travel. Stopping at Uncle Joe’s for a minute to say, “hi”, just because he happened to be on the way, would probably be considered a destination.

In any case, the language of 18USC926A strongly suggests transport by automobile. I would think it reasonable to presume that an airliner is not a type of transport vehicle covered by 18USC926A. The reasons I’d give for such a view would be: 1) Once you check a firearm you no longer have possession of it...the transport requirements of 18USC926A have no meaning whatsoever without possession. 2) State laws have no jurisdiction over airliners flying over the state...once again rendering the provisions of 18USC926A void and without meaning.

BB62
January 21, 2005, 10:20 AM
Two things -

1) While I have no doubt the original post was not wholly from an NRA release (for the reasons previously mentioned, and the fact that the poster seems to have disappeared), there is no question that the stated events are taking place. Why do I say this? I have been in contact with a member of the NRA's BOD (I think that is what he is on) - David Coy. He confirmed that the events were taking place and that the NRA was looking into it. Just because he confirmed it, though, does not IMHO mean that we ought to quit bugging the NRA and other RKBA orgs about it though!

2) A while back I became aware of a RKBA US House of Representatives group. I believe the rep linked below is the head of the group (Colorado), and if not, she can certainly have us direct our comments to the right place. I am proud and fortunate to say that my rep is also in the group.

http://wwwc.house.gov/musgrave/108th%20Web/issues_second_amendment.htm

Please post here if you have success in your outreach.


BB62

secamp32
January 21, 2005, 10:56 PM
with a pistol in my checked baggage. Each time the airline ticket counter (2 different airlines) person stated that they had to call the police to check it out. PAPD arrived and looked at my Id. They made a memo entry with my info including name , address, phone#, Dept and shield # and pistol s/n. They stated that anyone checking a handgun without a NY pistol permit would definitely be arrested. I was told that this happens regularly.

BB62
January 22, 2005, 09:41 AM
What does PAPD mean? I presume that the PD is Police Dept, but don't know what PA means.

BB62

Hypnogator
January 22, 2005, 10:04 AM
PAPD = Port Authority Police Department. Portcops.

Graystar
January 22, 2005, 10:04 AM
What does PAPD mean?Port Authority Police Department

Hawkmoon
January 22, 2005, 12:33 PM
Problem being that FOPA covers travel THROUGH one state to another. If their final destination is NYS, they need to be properly licensed in NYS to possess while in NYS. If they fly into NY and then later LEAVE NYS with that gun, they obviously haven't been travelling THROUGH NYS as per FOPA, they have been IN NYS for that period of time without the required permit. Unless they wer eengaged in one of the permit- exempted activities listed in the law, they'll find themselves in a jam.
But the NY airports (JFK and LaGuardia) are also gateways to other eastern states. It costs half as much to fly from most states into NY than to land at Hartford-Springfield, making NY the logical airport if you have to travel to most parts of Connecticut. JFK and LaGuardia also service NJ, since they together with Newark make up the port authority and many cities don't offer connections to Newark because the airlines already fly to JFK and/or LaGuardia.

So if I'm traveling from Tucson to Bridgeport, CT, and I land at either of the NY airports, my next step will be to get on a bus to Bridgeport. I will not be staying in NY any longer than necessary, I will be "in transit" for the entire duration of my time in NY.

This is why such a trip should be covered by the FOPA. It would be entirely different if I were traveling into NYC for a convention. FOPA would not apply in the latter case.

AirForceShooter
January 22, 2005, 01:42 PM
I spent decades living in the fair city of New York and I'll tell you this.
NYC has never recognized the right to carry for anyone except a NYC (yeah, NYC not State) ccw holder and those permits don't grow on trees.
If they find you with a gun it's off to jail. PERIOD.
I can remember them arresting Texas Rangers, shooters going to Camp Perry and people just traveling through that got stopped for a traffic ticket.
And as for the new rules regarding retired LEO's they already said they won't abide by them.
Carry a gun? Stay away. You're not legal even if you are.
God bless Florida

AFS

Graystar
January 22, 2005, 01:44 PM
But the NY airports (JFK and LaGuardia) are also gateways to other eatsrn states.You seem to be under the notion that the provisions of 18USC926A apply because you are traveling. That is incorrect. This law applies to the transport of firearms...not the travel of people. That is to say, just because you're traveling, doesn't mean you get to bring your guns along. The law simply provides for a method to legally transport firearms...your travel plans notwithstanding.

Remember, the provision is conditional. It starts...
shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm ifSee the “if”? Next comes the conditions that must be maintained...
during such transportation the firearm is unloaded
neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible
or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle

Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.It’s fairly clear that you must have a vehicle. But between the time you get off the plane and board a bus, you don’t have a vehicle. As such you are not in compliance with the law.

I also seriously doubt a court would hold that public transportation is a legitimate vehicle for transporting firearms under 18USC926A.

chetth
January 22, 2005, 02:11 PM
I also seriously doubt a court would hold that public transportation is a legitimate vehicle for transporting firearms under 18USC926A.



Section 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or
regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any
person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from
transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to
transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he
may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place
where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during
such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the
firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible
or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such
transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle
without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the
firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container
other than the glove compartment or console.

I'm not sure that 18USC926A actually requires a personally owned vehicle, since that would be somewhat discriminatory (sp?). A locked container might be arguably not "readily accessible", even on public transport. Otherwise I think a good lawyer could make an case for undue hardship if you MUST use a car (something not everyone owns or can afford, not to mention drivers licensing requirements)

Hawkmoon
January 22, 2005, 06:17 PM
I think it is clear that the author(s) of the FOPA had in mind personal automobiles when they wrote the law. However, it is grammatically invalid from the outset.

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person ... shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:
Nowhere prior to where I highlighted the word "such" is there any mention of a vehicle. If a vehicle has not been mentioned, described, or defined, how can the text refer to "such" vehicle? The logical response to that is WHAT vehicle?

Nonetheless, it IS clear that the intent of the law is to allow individuals to transport firearms WITH THEM when they travel. This is not about shipping a gun from point A to point B -- it's about taking your gun with you when you travel. Thus, in the scenario I suggested in a previous post (traveling from AZ to CT via one of the NY airports), since I will be in transit at all times I am in NY, I should be covered. Yes, the text says the gun and ammo must be in an area in an area not accessible from the passenger compartment of "such" vehicle. As it does not address at all changing modes of transportation (airplane to bus), it doesn't address whether or not the gun and/or ammo must be inaccessible to me while I am changing modes. But it does NOT prohibit changing modes.

I agree the wording is not clear, but I submit that changing modes of transportation should not be prohibited, so long as the gun remains in a locked container while changing modes.

But it will probably require a court case to make the determination, and as usual I would prefer not to be the test case.

Graystar
January 22, 2005, 08:41 PM
If a vehicle has not been mentioned, described, or defined, how can the text refer to "such" vehicle? The logical response to that is WHAT vehicle?That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a one-paragraph statute...they mentioned vehicle when it was appropriate to do so. Far more telling is what comes after the part you quoted...
Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.Thanks to federal mishmash the statute isn’t crystal clear...but I’d bet you’d have a very difficult time trying to convince a judge that a Greyhound or Amtrak from NY to Connecticut qualifies.
Nonetheless, it IS clear that the intent of the law is to allow individuals to transport firearms WITH THEM when they travel.I do not believe that is correct. The intent of the law was to provide a federally protected method of transporting firearms. Whether you're transporting the firearms for use on your vacation, or just delivering a firearm (say, as a bequeathment) is irrelevant. What’s being provided is a transport method...not a way to enhance your vacation. That is to say, the focus of the law is movement of firearms, not the support of travelers’ rights or privileges in whatever state they happen to desire to go.
since I will be in transit at all times I am in NY, I should be covered.You’re traveling all the time, but you’re not in a vehicle all the time. And like I said, I seriously doubt a court will hold that public vehicles qualify.
I'm not sure that 18USC926A actually requires a personally owned vehicle, since that would be somewhat discriminatory (sp?).No, not a personally owned vehicle...just a vehicle. You can rent or borrow one. I think, though, that it’s clear you have to have one. A public vehicle isn’t going to cut it.

citizen
January 22, 2005, 09:20 PM
Ya know, it seems that even if you rented a car AT THE AIRPORT and drove to Bridgeport, Hartford, whatever.....the moment you claim your "luggage" off the carousel you're technically illegal (!!!??) This creates a realistically IMPOSSIBLE situation and is best AVOIDED - LIKE ALL OF NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm truly impressed with the info from Graystar though I HATE what he's saying.....(gotta contact him next time I'm back to the "old country")

Graystar
January 22, 2005, 10:21 PM
...though I HATE what he's saying...You and me both! :p

MueveloNYC
June 30, 2010, 02:27 PM
Now that McDonald ruling is through and 2A is incorporated to all states and cities, including NYC, I wonder if we can see change?

We all know of the letter to the DOJ that says this was ok in their letter to Congressman Young:
http://handgunlaw.us/documents/doj_doc_nyc_air.pdf

And with Beach vs Kelly ruling, Sotomayor in the NY Circuit court ruled that FOPA is not valid since 2A is not applicable in NYC. Now that it is, this should change everything?

Legionnaire
June 30, 2010, 04:11 PM
This thread is more than five years old. Wonder if there were any changes between January, 2005, and today? Might be best to close this one and start afresh.

MueveloNYC
June 30, 2010, 04:37 PM
not really much has happened as it basically became prescedent, which is why I commented on this thread, as these 3 things happened...

1. The topic of the original post
2. Letter from DOJ basically stating that FOPA over FAA airports is ok from both JFK and La Guardia airports in NYC
3. Beach vs. Kelly ruling in the NY Circuit court by Sotomayor (before she became SCOTUS judge) saying FOPA didn't apply to Beach (who transported exactly as stated in the #2 letter) since 2nd amendment does not apply in NYC.

And now, 2A does apply universally across the country, so thus FOPA would apply, no?

skunyun
June 30, 2010, 04:44 PM
You NYC'ers need to get rid of Bumborg (oops Blonnybubble) oops Blusterburg) oops Bloombum, you know who

DIM
June 30, 2010, 04:52 PM
I don't care about what's going on in NYC, I live 7 hour drive away from it... But if you got permit issued say in my county its no good if you enter neighboring county and I live on the county line and my gun range across the border guess what... I can't transport my hand gun properly locked to such county because other county want recognize it... I'll just stick to the rifles for now...

Sebastian the Ibis
June 30, 2010, 04:55 PM
This was decided by the Third Circuit in March 2010.

See attached decision,

and:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/30/unexpected-flight-delay-hotel-stay-criminal-prosecution-for-gun-possession/

CAUTION --- THIS THREAD IS 5 YEARS OLD

MueveloNYC
June 30, 2010, 05:12 PM
that's NJ though... NY is a whole other beast.

cambeul41
June 30, 2010, 05:31 PM
Sheesh!

I didn't read the dates on most of this thread until there was mention of packing.org!

MueveloNYC
July 1, 2010, 10:42 AM
While it's 5 years old it's still relevant to NYC's rules currently, as it stands, since the day of the original post to now, the law/regulation still stands. Just bringing back to light with the McDonald ruling...

mgkdrgn
July 2, 2010, 06:59 PM
We just had a similar situation, although not entirely the same scenario: we arrested a woman who was a NYS resident who was trying to fly out of our airport with a handgun and no permit. WHY someone would try to do that when they know a permit is required, who knows. Anyway, she was arrested.

Is "your airport" in NYS?

If not, why are you enforcing a NYS law?

Why do people do things like that? Remember, an IQ of 100 is an average ... which means 1/2 of the people you meet are below that ...

Sam1911
July 2, 2010, 07:09 PM
Is "your airport" in NYS? If not, why are you enforcing a NYS law?

Why do people do things like that? Remember, an IQ of 100 is an average ... which means 1/2 of the people you meet are below that

Sometimes irony just leaps out of the underbrush and grabs us by the throat!

You might consider that the post you're replying to is six years old. :D

----------

At any rate, this illustrates why resurrection of very old threads is problematic.

In general, if new information comes to light about a thread that's more than a year old, just start a new thread. Then you don't get folks' dander up about things written half-a-decade ago by posters who may have moved on or even shuffled off this mortal coil.

If you enjoyed reading about "NYS has officially decided not to recognize FOPA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!