Sergeant Bob
Member
I think those were his personal comments. I think he just failed to separate them from the body of the text.
NYS has officially decided not to recognize FOPA
- Thread starter tfurey19
- Start date
- Status
deej
Member
Sergeant Bob
Member
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
Member
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.
)?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
Member
Slow down guys...
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.
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
Member
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.
EOD Guy
Member
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
Member
The "Safe Passage Act" part of FOPA is here.
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).
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
Member
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
Member
Likewise,
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.
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.
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 California: If I want to buy something, and the company thats selling it is from New York or California, 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.
Not much else I can do, I already lump them in the same category with California: If I want to buy something, and the company thats selling it is from New York or California, 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.
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#post1453831Graystar
Member
Yes, just like any other state that makes a crime of possessing a firearm.
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,
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, “hiâ€, 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.
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 Web/issues_second_amendment.htm
Please post here if you have success in your outreach.
BB62
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 Web/issues_second_amendment.htm
Please post here if you have success in your outreach.
BB62
I have flown in and out of LGA several times this year
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.
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.
Hypnogator
Member
PAPD = Port Authority Police Department. Portcops.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
