NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York & The NYPD License Division

[GEM]

Given the collapse of any legislative chances for gun rights relief, the only hope is SCOTUS and that is a long process fraught with dangerous ambiguities.

 

[Deanimator]

No, you are supposed to leave your baggage with the airlines who will then place it on your connecting flight in the morning. Since you can't have possession of your gun in NYC, it makes no sense to claim the baggage.

Of course none of the victims was TOLD this beforehand...

It's utter foolishness to assume benign motives in such situations.

They're out to get you, any way they can, and you'd better act accordingly.

 

[Deanimator]

The felony-trap of changing planes in NY has nearly gotten some high-profile competitive shooters recently. Lots of international flights go in and out of JFK, and these are folks traveling with lots of paperwork/licensing/permitting from other countries to allow them to bring their IPSC handgun(s) (for instance) into other countries. Ordinarily, these people check their guns with the airline in, say, Atlanta or Milwaukee or wherever, and then the gun gets transferred as baggage without the passenger ever having (or being allowed) to touch the locked gun case. But if, on return to the states, their domestic connection has been cancelled or delayed, the airline will try to force them to claim all their checked baggage - including the pistol(s). And the local law enforcement will immediately arrest them.

Ben Stoeger had a big discussion about this with Hwansik Kim (who nearly got tangled up in this) on one of his youtube-channel shows recently. It's a big deal, with the potential to seriously impact the lives of individuals who are trying their very, very best to be compliant.

These "people" have an incandescent hatred for lawful citizen gun owners and will do ANYTHING within their power to harm us when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[ATLDave]

I mean, where you're detaining a guy who declared his gun, has it in a locked case, has gotten paperwork weeks or months in advance from, say, the government of France or Italy in order to be able to take a gun there and back, is flying with the gun for sport (not even self-defense, much less criminal) purposes, etc., then there's just bare animus. No reasonable person would think that passenger is the person to worry about. Unless you are just incensed at the very idea of him being allowed to own a firearm.

 

[boom boom]

I think personally that this case was taken to shut the 2nd Circuit down. While the 9th has a rep for bad behavior, the 2nd has been the most anti-firearm circuit. The two step analysis used in the case by the 2nd circuit makes a mockery of intermediate scrutiny and this case has the type of facts appealing to Dred Justice Roberts.

A decision against New York City will do little to disturb the public because it does not involve "scary" weapons but will resolve serious conflict between the circuits over the proper level of scrutiny and guidance for applying the test on regulations and laws that impinge on the the 2nd Amendment. Most people, other than New Yorkers would be appalled that someone could not transport a firearm outside of the city and the people doing this are not the sort that are going to commit random firearm violence anyway. As the petition for cert by the petitioners mentions, the NYC action impinges not only on the 2A, but the Commerce Clause (via FOPA), and the fundamental right to travel under the privileges and immunities clause.

 

[Speedo66]

NY Penal Law 265.20, Sub. 13 provides an exemption for out of state competitors to enter and travel through the state with pistols if they are competing in an NRA or Int'l. Handgun Metallic Silhouette Asso. match in NY. Section Sub. 12 provides a similar exemption for college teams.

Here's the section:

13. Possession of pistols and revolvers by a person who is a
nonresident of this state while attending or traveling to or from, an
organized competitive pistol match or league competition under auspices
of, or approved by, the National Rifle Association and in which he is a
competitor, within forty-eight hours of such event or by a person who is
a non-resident of the state while attending or traveling to or from an
organized match sanctioned by the International Handgun Metallic
Silhouette Association and in which he is a competitor, within
forty-eight hours of such event, provided that he has not been
previously convicted of a felony or a crime which, if committed in New
York, would constitute a felony, and further provided that the pistols
or revolvers are transported unloaded in a locked opaque container
together with a copy of the match program, match schedule or match
registration card. Such documentation shall constitute prima facie
evidence of exemption, providing that such person also has in his
possession a pistol license or firearms registration card issued in
accordance with the laws of his place of residence.

You seem to be overlooking the people LAWFULLY traveling THROUGH NYC airports with guns, who for various reasons were delayed, and prosecuted for "illegally" having firearms in their possession. Apparently if your connecting flight is delayed or canceled, you're supposed to dump your guns in the Hudson.

As previously stated, no through passenger should ever have handguns in their possession, delayed flight or not.

 

[ATLDave]

Speedo, there are a lot of shooting sports beyond that, and lots of people have to fly through New York to shoot somewhere other than New York. That provision isn't helpful to them.

Have you ever had a connecting flight cancelled and have to spend the night at an airport hotel?

 

[Speedo66]

Speedo, there are a lot of shooting sports beyond that, and lots of people have to fly through New York to shoot somewhere other than New York. That provision isn't helpful to them.

Have you ever had a connecting flight cancelled and have to spend the night at an airport hotel?

Yes, I have missed flights and had to spend the night in a hotel. I did not claim my luggage, in fact they wouldn't give it to me, and it was subsequently misplaced for several days. I didn't have any firearms with me, thankfully, but I think an airline would be less likely to misplace one.

To be honest, I'd rather lose a firearm then spend some time for possessing one illegally. I have had some time in jails, lodging prisoners, etc., I do not wish to spend one more minute in one, ever.

I think people are getting a little paranoid here, no one is out to get you, but if you break the law and are caught, you will be subject to an arrest process. No one is standing around Kennedy grinning and rubbing their hands together gleefully waiting for someone to enter with a gun as certain people would suggest.

 

[ATLDave]

No one is standing around Kennedy grinning and rubbing their hands together gleefully waiting for someone to enter with a gun.

To "enter" with a gun? No. To try to leave with one? It seems that they are based on several recent stories.

Nobody is arguing with you that, given the absurd laws and unreasonable attitude of law enforcement there, one must do everything to avoid coming into possession of your own gun while you are at JFK. Nobody disagrees with you. The discussion is whether that's an outrageous situation, and exemplary of NY and NYC's naked disregard for individual rights. That's all.

 

[Deanimator]

As previously stated, no through passenger should ever have handguns in their possession, delayed flight or not.

And as previously stated, nobody was told this nor were they given an alternative.

None of this has ANY purpose beyond harassment and infantile cruelty.

 

[Deanimator]

I think people are getting a little paranoid here, no one is out to get you, but if you break the law and are caught, you will be subject to an arrest process. No one is standing around Kennedy grinning and rubbing their hands together gleefully waiting for someone to enter with a gun as certain people would suggest.

This is demonstrably untrue.

You're not "paranoid" if they're really out to get you.

And they are.

Nobody's foolish enough to sincerely attribute benign motives to any of this anymore.

 

[George P]

And as previously stated, nobody was told this nor were they given an alternative.

None of this has ANY purpose beyond harassment and infantile cruelty.

Of course it does; it has the ability to enrich the city with fines, lawyers with fees; it has the ability to instill more anti-gun fear into the people; and it is very good at all of that.

 

[Speedo66]

To "enter" with a gun? No. To try to leave with one? It seems that they are based on several recent stories.

Nobody is arguing with you that, given the absurd laws and unreasonable attitude of law enforcement there, one must do everything to avoid coming into possession of your own gun while you are at JFK. Nobody disagrees with you. The discussion is whether that's an outrageous situation, and exemplary of NY and NYC's naked disregard for individual rights. That's all.

Yes, I certainly agree that the laws regarding firearms in NY have been ridiculous, more so now with the Safe Act. However, if you're suggesting law enforcement officers are unreasonable if they enforce existing law, I would have to disagree. Take that up with the idiots in Albany who create and pass these laws, and the Governor who pushes for them and signs them.

Most legislators in Albany had no idea what they were signing with the Safe Act. They were told by the head of their party to sign it or lose privileges, chairmanships, and ultimately money. In NYS, anything important is created by three men in a room, the two party heads and the governor. They totally disenfranchise the voters.

 

[ATLDave]

Are you familiar with the notion that it is actually very common for normal "law abiding" people to violate lots of laws on a routine basis with absolutely no knowledge? There was a book that made the case that the average American commits about 6 felonies per day. For instance, if you call in sick when you're not and you work for a entity with offices/holdings in more than one state, there's a case to be made that you've committed wire fraud.

It's all well and good to say "cops have to enforce the law," but the truth is that, but for prosecutorial discretion and reasonableness on the part of LEO's, we'd all end up behind bars PDQ.

 

[Deanimator]

Are you familiar with the notion that it is actually very common for normal "law abiding" people to violate lots of laws on a routine basis with absolutely no knowledge? There was a book that made the case that the average American commits about 6 felonies per day. For instance, if you call in sick when you're not and you work for a entity with offices/holdings in more than one state, there's a case to be made that you've committed wire fraud.

It's all well and good to say "cops have to enforce the law," but the truth is that, but for prosecutorial discretion and reasonableness on the part of LEO's, we'd all end up behind bars PDQ.

Of course the delicious irony is that if a cop FALSELY arrests you for something that's NOT a crime, his defense will INEVITABLY be, "There are too many laws for a cop to know!"

 

[ATLDave]

And unless there's some on-point case that clearly and unequivocally dealt with pretty much the same issue, that will likely be enough to insulate him and his department from any liability.

 

[Speedo66]

Yes, there is some discretion in whether or not to effect an arrest. Illegal handgun possession in NYC is not something you have much latitude with.

 

[ATLDave]

That's the point - a situation where someone who has bent over backwards to be law-compliant is getting arrested because they followed directions from an airline employee is something that any reasonable use of discretion would not turn into a criminal matter. But because the attitude of the LE powers in the area is that this is a "zero tolerance"* subject, officers don't use discretion. That's the problem.

* Zero tolerance is, definitionally, the express and conscious rejection of discretion and reasonability.

 

[Speedo66]

So what do you suggest, allowing someone with an illegal weapon to have his handgun returned to him, and everyone just walks away?

You probably have no idea how many city, state, and federal law enforcement agencies there are at Kennedy airport. Someone caught with a weapon does not go unnoticed. Should the officer put his employment on the line because someone intentionally, or even by accident, brought a handgun into a secure facility?

I have seen incidents where a judge decided there were extenuating circumstances and did not impose the mandatory minimum one year sentence when they believed the traveler's explanation. But that's for the courts to decide, not the officer at the scene.

 

[ATLDave]

How about walking the passenger back to the airline check-in desk and telling the passenger they need to go ahead and re-check their locked gun case if they don't want to get arrested? I don't think this is really a hard situation for the cop.

 

[Deanimator]

How about walking the passenger back to the airline check-in desk and telling the passenger they need to go ahead and re-check their locked gun case if they don't want to get arrested? I don't think this is really a hard situation for the cop.

Can't do THAT. That wouldn't harm a NON-criminal TRYING to comply with the law.

Lawful gun owners must be crushed.

Actual violent criminals must be plea-bargained or "diverted" out.

It's plain who's seen as the enemy to be destroyed.

 

[ATLDave]

I've been pulled over by cops a few times. About half the time, I have gotten a ticket... about half the time I've gotten some kind of warning/verbal reprimand. I've seen cops tell kids smoking pot to get rid of their joint, and I've seen cops arrest kids for having a joint. We've all seen and/or experienced cops using judgment to bring people into compliance without using punitive sanctions. And for most victimless crimes, this is generally the better approach. They may be empowered to aggressively enforce-with-prosecution every victimless violation... but if they do so, I think they're making the world a worse place, not better.

I don't think "what's a cop to do???" is some difficult imponderable in these situations. There's a bunch of obvious stuff they can do that will quickly get a person who is trying to obey the law back into compliance (and also quickly identify those who have no intention of complying because of criminal intent). Do one of those things. Duh.

Short version: Act like Sheriff Taylor, not Deputy Fife. Be Andy, not Barney.

 

[Styx]

Big difference in this day and age between a traffic stop and a kid smoking marijuana, and a having a gun in a airport setting... If I was NY L.E., I would risk my job and livelyhood over this... I would do my job and enforce the law even if I didn't like the law...

With that said, there are some antistate officers who take pride and enjoyment in busting gun owners who they deem not worty of being to exercise theere 2A rights...

 

[Frank Ettin]

This has gone on long enough. There'll be more to talk about after SCOTUS rules.