NYS has officially decided not to recognize FOPA

[Graystar]

What does PAPD mean?

Port Authority Police Department

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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 if

See 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]

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)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

...though I HATE what he's saying...

You and me both!

 

[MueveloNYC]

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]

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]

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]

You NYC'ers need to get rid of Bumborg (oops Blonnybubble) oops Blusterburg) oops Bloombum, you know who

 

[DIM]

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]

This was decided by the Third Circuit in March 2010.

See attached decision,

and:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/30/unexpe...stay-criminal-prosecution-for-gun-possession/

CAUTION --- THIS THREAD IS 5 YEARS OLD

 

[MueveloNYC]

that's NJ though... NY is a whole other beast.

 

[cambeul41]

Sheesh!

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

 

[MueveloNYC]

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]

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]

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.

----------

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.