Floyd Mayweather's opponent arrested at NY airport after declaring Gun

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I hope that someday people can have legally carried guns in every state and not get arrested for it.


This guy is famous, he's boxing Floyd Mayweather next, so we'll see where this goes. This could be a good case for the courts perhaps. He declared his unloaded gun when he arrived at check-in.


I'd say they can charge him with at least two things, the gun and the 15 round mags which are against the SAFE Act.




http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...d-at-jfk-airport-for-gun-possession?hpt=hp_t2

.
Robert Guerrero Reportedly Arrested at JFK Airport for Gun Possession

By Tim Daniels(Featured Columnist) on March 28, 2013


Boxer Robert Guerrero was arrested Thursday morning for gun possession at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, reports Joe Kemp of the New York Daily News.

According to BoxingScene.com, Brown told reporters that bringing an unloaded weapon into the county is a Class E felony. The boxer brought a .40 caliber handgun and three 15-round magazines into New York, and told authorities at the airport where he was arrested that he had them. He now faces one count of criminal possession of a firearm and three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, a combination of felony charges that could see him facing up to four years in prison.

Guerrero is scheduled to face Floyd Mayweather Jr. on May 4 in a welterweight title bout. He was en route to Las Vegas, the location of the fight, when he was found in possession of a firearm at the airport and placed under arrested, according to the report.
.

.

 

[smalls]

At least he's safe from Mayweather in his cell .

 

[Bill_Shelton]

I hope that Guerrero's didn't stay in NYC while he was in the area, for that would be harder to defend....or am I wrong about this? I mean, I think someone has the right to pass through a gun-banning Jurisdiction even if they are carrying a gun so long as they are traveling in route to somewhere where it is legal. Did I get that right?

Gawd...I hate living in a Police State. It's so hard to know what's legal and what's not!

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I hope that Guerrero's didn't stay in NYC while he was in the area, for that would be harder to defend....or am I wrong about this? I mean, I think someone has the right to pass through a gun-banning Jurisdiction even if they are carrying a gun so long as they are traveling in route to somewhere where it is legal. Did I get that right?

That's what I was thinking too.



However, it looks like he was coming into NY to stay, it wasn't a connecting flight.
.

 

[Vonderek]

While unfair it's just plain stupid on his part. It's the gunowner's responsibility to check the laws of where he/she travels. Some states it's legal to transport as long as you are passing through and it's locked in a case separate from ammunition. Others it's illegal entirely. He could have had one of his assistants/entourage make a 5-min online search.

Now he'll spend many thousands of dollars to defend himself and faces possible jail time. Not to mention possibly losing years from a lucrative career with a short expiration date. If one travels out of state it's just not worth traveling with a gun without checking not only the laws of the state of final destination but also the states traveling through en route.

 

[smalls]

Some states it's legal to transport as long as you are passing through and it's locked in a case separate from ammunition. Others it's illegal entirely. He could have had one of his assistants/entourage make a 5-min online search.

A 5 minute search would have shown you that FOPA protects you traveling through ALL 50 states

 

[Bill_Shelton]

A 5 minute search would have shown you that FOPA protects you traveling through ALL 50 states

Did a search and all I found was undocumented heresay. However, you posted "FOPA", and I imediatly found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Thanks.

Uh Oh...it looks like Roberto stayed in NYC several nights from the time he arrived until the time he left.

http://www.boxingscene.com/queens-da-robert-guerrero-facing-four-felonies--63834

I don't think there's a defense for this one. Hope I am wrong.

 

[smalls]

And did you read under the "Safe Passage Act"?

 

[Bill_Shelton]

And did you read under the "Safe Passage Act"?

Yeah, I did and I don't think it applies here since Roberto spent several nights in NYC.

 

[Sam1911]

Right. The "Safe Passage" portion only applies if you're traveling through an area. If you're stopping for some reason (aside from potty and a meal, perhaps) then that place is considered your "destination" and you must abide by the laws in effect in that destination.

Staying in an area several nights? Yeah, no safe passage claim for you!

 

[smalls]

I don't think it applies here.

It doesn't, and I never said it did. I was correcting the misinformation that Vonderek posted.

A little off topic, but it needed to be corrected.

 

[Bill_Shelton]

It doesn't, and I never said it did. I was correcting the misinformation that Vonderek posted.

I know that. I was alluding to the information that I gleaned from the lead that you gave me.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[steelerdude99]

Even if he was just traveling through NYC, NYC is still going to harass and arrest travelers with any firearms that are not NY registered even with Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. I posted the text below recently in another THR thread. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=709067

chuck

======================================
I don't see how such a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill would work if any jurisdiction has the ability to ignore the law.

Case in point: A provision of the federal law known as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, protects those who are transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which would otherwise prohibit passage. A simple idea, right? New York and a few other states feel that they have the freedom to just ignore it. So, until such a law "has teeth", local and state jurisdictions will just ignore.

See: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/artic...portation.aspx about half way down, see "JURISDICTIONS WITH SPECIAL RULES".

chuck

 

[Sam1911]

Right. FOPA is an Affirmative Defense. That means you get out of the penalty -- once the state puts you through arrest, imprisonment, and trial.

"You can beat the RAP, but you can't beat the RIDE." As they say.

 

[throdgrain]

I dont understand your laws, they seem so complicated. Where is the 2nd amendment if this guy can get arrested for carrying an unloaded firearm.

It make me think that the USA is in some ways like 50 different countries bound by similar (but not always the same) laws.

 

[armedandsafe]

It make me think that the USA is in some ways like 50 different countries bound by similar (but not always the same) laws.

You are exactly right in that assessment. That is why we named it the UNITED States. A uniting of sovereign States for common defense and cooperation.

At least, that was the intent. The latest direction we are heading, though, is much different.

Pops

 

[Iramo94]

I dont understand your laws, they seem so complicated. Where is the 2nd amendment if this guy can get arrested for carrying an unloaded firearm.

It make me think that the USA is in some ways like 50 different countries bound by similar (but not always the same) laws.

That's how it was meant to be. People who want nanny states can get them, and the rest of us will live where government isn't oppressive.

Guerrero should have read up on what type of state he was entering.

 

[smalls]

I don't see how such a National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill would work if any jurisdiction has the ability to ignore the law.

As Sam pointed out, it's an affirmative defense. Meaning you have to be brought under charges to use it.

I dont understand your laws, they seem so complicated. Where is the 2nd amendment if this guy can get arrested for carrying an unloaded firearm.

Yeah, complicated and somewhat stupid at times, but at least we can own them without (much) hassle!

 

[JRH6856]

You are exactly right in that assessment. That is why we named it the UNITED States. A uniting of sovereign States for common defense and cooperation.

At least, that was the intent. The latest direction we are heading, though, is much different.

Pops

That was the intent, but we fought a war over it from 1861-65 and in 1866, the winners of that war ratified the 14th Amendment that pretty much nullified that original intent.

 

[Aikibiker]

I hope that Guerrero's didn't stay in NYC while he was in the area, for that would be harder to defend....or am I wrong about this?

It should be easier since NYC does not issue permits to possess a pistol to people that do not live in NYC there is no legal way he could have possessed the firearm thus the city could be in violation of the Heller ruling.

remember in Heller the SCOTUS said that they have to allow you a chance to own a handgun. The court made no mention of what restrictions are on that ability to own one, but if you cannot own it, and in NYC a non-resident cannot, then NYC is in violation of the ruling.

He might be in trouble with the magazines though. Hopefully he will have the money/fame/guts to take his felony case all the way to the Supreme Court unlike so many that have had the same thing happen to them and pled down to a misdemeaner.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

It should be easier since NYC does not issue permits to possess a pistol to people that do not live in NYC there is no legal way he could have possessed the firearm thus the city could be in violation of the Heller ruling.

remember in Heller the SCOTUS said that they have to allow you a chance to own a handgun. The court made no mention of what restrictions are on that ability to own one, but if you cannot own it, and in NYC a non-resident cannot, then NYC is in violation of the ruling.

He might be in trouble with the magazines though. Hopefully he will have the money/fame/guts to take his felony case all the way to the Supreme Court unlike so many that have had the same thing happen to them and pled down to a misdemeaner.

My bet, guy like this, pleads to a misdemeanor and moves on. Similar to Meredith Graves from Tennesse who declared her firearm at the 9/11 memorial.




Good case for SCOTUS since he seems clean, but I doubt he'll fight it.
.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Update:



Apparently Showtime was filming a promo with Guerrero for his fight with Mayweather and asked him to bring the gun for a photo op. Because of this a Showtime representitive was with him at his bail hearing. Either way, strange gun to bring for a hunter.


Perhaps he can use the "I'm promoting the 1st Amendment" defense ala NBC's David Gregory or the "I'm Hollywood and making a movie/show" defense that NY is considering with the SAFE Act.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/champion_boxer_B3SPnQAgfY6rMeKXufQl9I

.
Guerrero, who was being filmed by a crew from the Showtime network, said the “media knows he is a hunter and requested he bring the weapon for a photo op,” said a police report.

A Showtime crew showed up today at Queens Criminal Court for Guerrero’s expected arraignment.
.

.

 

[fanchisimo]

I agree that this is the type of case that should be pushed to the SCOTUS. Since he is a famous figure, people could rally behind him and he has the money to fund it. Also, since he turned himself in so to speak, acted in a very respectable manner, and there was nobody harmed, it seems like the best chance for overturning the SAFE act. However isn't the law already being challenged in NY by someone else with NRA and it's state affiliate's backing?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

They are already suing for the SAFE Act.



However, it would be good for having a firearm in a different state.
.

 

[gym]

He will get off. He has money, that's life.