bringing firearm to nj for flight to ak

[Vt.birdhunter]

One of my hunting buddies is a local retired LEO here in New York. Fastest way to one of our whitetail spots is through Jersey. He wont even DRIVE through NJ with a LONG-ARM.
We go the long way during deer season.
0 tolerance round there.

 

[jgcoastie]

The bolded part is not completely accurate. You may also drive through any state under strict compliance and adherence to the terms of the FOPA. The state would lose that battle in federal court and damages would be awarded.

Read what I wrote a bit more carefully before you try to call me out...

What I said was: The only protection the FOPA gives you in this scenario is if you're flying from a state where you're legal to possess the firearms...

The scenario which I referenced was the one you provided which only included flight plans with absolutely zero reference to driving anywhere through NJ.

FOPA protects travel THROUGH states, yes even NJ

Yes it does, however if your flight destination is Newark, NJ where you deplane, exit security, and take possession of your checked luggage (firearms in locked case) then you are no longer covered by the FOPA as I understand it. Your flight destination is in NJ, you can't legally possess them in NJ, so by carrying them from the airport terminal in your hand, you have taken possession. The locked case does not matter because you either have the key or combination, so that is not a barrier.

You can't put your mitts on your guns while stopped in NJ and still expect to be covered by FOPA. Locked case ot not, your hands are on your guns. The seperate compartment bit is there for a reason, because you're not FOPA-ccovered to have them in your hands in states where you legally can't....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes it does, however if your flight destination is Newark, NJ where you deplane, exit security, and take possession of your checked luggage (firearms in locked case) then you are no longer covered by the FOPA as I understand it. Your flight destination is in NJ, you can't legally possess them in NJ, so by carrying them from the airport terminal in your hand, you have taken possession. The locked case does not matter because you either have the key or combination, so that is not a barrier.

I am not prepared to volunteer to be the test case, but the fact you plane lands in NJ does not mean your destination is NJ. A trip starts where you last slept, and ends where you will sleep at the end of the trip. Newark is an international airport serving the greater NY metropolitan area. It is the third of three airports in the NY/NJ Port Authority system, along with JFK and LGA.

Many years ago, I flew from and back through Newark on trips to England from Connecticut. On the way out, my destination was a county in the southeast of England. On the way back, my destination was Connecticut. The fact the plan landed at Newark did not mean my trip ended in New Jersey. That would be like saying if I change from I-80 to I-84 at Scranton, my trip ends in Pennsylvania and I begin a new trip when I change highways. Or when I rode a Greyhound from Montana to NYC, the fact I changed buses in Chicago means one trip ended in Chicago and then I began a second trip from Chicago to NYC -- even though I never left the bus terminal and never opened my suitcase.

The locked case is not a barrier when its in your car, either, but the law doesn't say the owner can't be able to open the case. The law only stipulates that the case be locked. You can't make it say more than it says.

Sadly, when the FOPA was drafted the people who wrote it failed to take into account that people get from Point A to Point B by means other than privately-owned automobiles, and the law simply doesn't make clear that the intent of the law extends beyond travel by car. The law needs to be revised, but that should only be undertaken when there's a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

 

[NJgunowner]

Look, we can argue this all day. But the reality is regardless of what any federal law states the NJ police are going to make you wish you hadn't been born. In the END, you may win. But the real question is do you have the time, MONEY, determination, and MONEY to deal with it.

Probably not.

 

[brickeyee]

Drove through NJ, NY, etc, all perfectly legally.

He is NOT "driving through" he is driving into NJ, then boarding a plane at an NJ airport.

This is a case NOT addressed by FOPA, so NJ will win.

Leave from an airport in PA, fly to NJ, have the gun in checked baggage so you never have possession in NJ, and you will fly right through and be covered.

Drive into NJ, unload at airport to board plane, and they will (and have) arrested people.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Read what I wrote a bit more carefully before you try to call me out...

Fair enough, in that scenario you would be correct.

Yes it does, however if your flight destination is Newark, NJ where you deplane, exit security, and take possession of your checked luggage (firearms in locked case) then you are no longer covered by the FOPA as I understand it. Your flight destination is in NJ, you can't legally possess them in NJ, so by carrying them from the airport terminal in your hand, you have taken possession. The locked case does not matter because you either have the key or combination, so that is not a barrier.

I agree with Aguila Blanca, your flight destination is not necessarily your journey destination. FOPA does not distinguish between whatever forms of transportation, or multiple forms of transportation that may be employed to arrive at your final destination, which is what counts.

 

[brickeyee]

i am driving from where i live in colorado to my parents house in nj to visit before going back to work in alaska.

The moment you stop at your parents house NJ can arrest you.

You have entered the state, are no longer on your journey (you are making a stop at your parents house that is not required for your trip THROUGH NJ).

When you show at the airport to check your gun, they will call the police and you will be arrested.

You will then lose in state court 9repeatedly) and try to appeal teh federal court.

The federal court may even elect to hear your case.

Like the previous case you will then lose and likely be turned down by the SCOTUS.

But hey, if you want to repeat the previous case go for it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I agree that in THIS case the original poster would be illegal and, if caught and arrested, would lose in court. The law is clear -- without a permission slip from the State of New Jersey he cannot possess the guns in NJ. Since possession is not legal in NJ, the FOPA simply does not apply -- AT ALL, not even while he's passing through Nebraska (although there it won't matter).

However, if by "Like the previous case you will then lose and likely be turned down by the SCOTUS.

But hey, if you want to repeat the previous case go for it." you are referring to the gentleman who was arrested at Newark Airport, he did not get convicted. You are leaving out essential facts and creating an incorrect understanding.

He WAS arrested. He DID spend several days in jail before being released on bond. However, he was NOT even tried on the charge. The prosecutor dropped the case, so there was NO trial, and NO conviction. Why did the prosecutor drop the case? Pure speculation, but most likely because he knew that IF he got a conviction, it would be overturned on appeal due to the FOPA, and if it got to an appeal court it would be binding precedent for other cases. By dropping it, he left the police in NJ free to arrest other people on the same bogus charge, since there's no case law extant to tell them they're wrong.

Where the gentleman was turned down by the SCOTUS was his lawsuit against the NYNJ Port Authority seeking damages for false arrest. That was a civil lawsuit with him as plaintiff, not a criminal case with him as defendant. He lost the suit, he lost again on appeal, and when he appealed that to the SCOTUS they declined to accept the case.

Again-- the circumstances were quite different from this case, because he actually WAS in transit through New Jersey. And he was NOT convicted. But what the cops did to him is enough to make people justifiably nervous about relying on the FOPA in New Jersey. Which, I am convinced, is why the prosecutor dropped the charges -- to maintain the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) factor among the populace.

 

[maestro pistolero]

By dropping it, he left the police in NJ free to arrest other people on the same bogus charge, since there's no case law extant to tell them they're wrong.

Yes. And those are the circumstances, not the OP's scenario, that inspired my idea in post #21:

Here's an idea:

At the right time and with the proper preparation, planning and legal oversight, I would like to see an entire flight booked up by a group properly transporting firearms according to the FOPA.

We could take private coaches from, say, Philadelphia directly to the airport and check in en-masse in Newark for a flight into, say, Pittsburgh and then back through Newark for direct transportation back to PA. Everybody would line up to check in and declare the firearms at once.

Essentially DARE them to arrest the entire passenger list.

The monetary damages and political fallout from documented, malicious, and illegal enforcement activity could be tremendous. If they are unrepentant after they lose, do it again and again until their LE resources are exhausted and they don't have time or money left for anything else.

While this is off the original topic, and not applicable to the OP, it is a potential future means for forcing compliance by NJ with a very controlled, public demonstration of what the FOPA really means.

Aguila Blanca, thanks for helping to clarify things.

 

[war_elephant]

Do NOT bring a gun to NJ unless you want it confiscated, and yourself arrested. NJ does not recognize the 2nd amendment nor the FOPA act. Remember that an appeals judge made special rules for those travelling in NJ that you have to transfer it to a dealer or the Police and get a NJ permit to get it back. NJ pistol purchase permits are not given to out of state residents. You would not be breaking any law, but you will still spend about a year in prison. DO NOT BRING A GUN INTO NJ unless you want to be arrested, and imprisoned.
Dont like it, but that is the socialist republic of NJ. Not part of the union, and the Constitution doesnt work here.

 

[brickeyee]

Again-- the circumstances were quite different from this case, because he actually WAS in transit through New Jersey.

He was no longer "in transit through New Jersey" when his flight was canceled (missed) and he retrieved the gun from the airline.

His trip stopped being continuous from legal startng location to legal ending location.

Yep, it sucks, but that the law does not have an exception.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

He was no longer "in transit through New Jersey" when his flight was canceled (missed) and he retrieved the gun from the airline.

His trip stopped being continuous from legal startng location to legal ending location.

Yep, it sucks, but that the law does not have an exception.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, until the courts have a definitive case on this question. The law does not have an exception, but the law also does not say that your trip ends if you need to sleep. Suppose you set out to drive from Seattle to Miami. According to Mapquest, that's 3309 miles and requires 49 hours and 48 minutes of actual driving time. In round numbers, a week. Your view would be that, if you break the trip down into 10-hour days, you're making five separate "trips." By that logic, then, you would also have to ensure that you are not only legal in Seattle and in Miami, but also in each of the states and cities where you stop for the night.

I just don't think that's consistent with the legislative intent of the law. If you set out on a trip like that, you tell people you're going on "a" road trip to Miami. You don't tell people you're going on a succession of five consecutive road trips. It's ONE trip, with five legs.

I understand your point, but the ONLY reason the gentleman stayed a night in New Jersey was that his connection got messed up. He had no "destination" in New Jersey, he had no reason to be there other than to travel through there, and he never even left the airport -- he slept in an airport hotel. That sort of activity is commonplace in traveling. Why else do you suppose the prosecutor dropped the case? If your view is correct, the prosecutor had a slam dunk ... but he declined to prosecute. I don't think it was because he's such a great guy.

And this is why I repeat that the FOPA is flawed. It was intended to make it possible for people to engage in interstate travel without having to worry about the laws on intervening states. BUT ... the dweebs who wrote the law forgot that people travel from one state to another by means other than automobile -- such as airplanes and trains. Buses, too, but if you leave your gun in your suitcase and the suitcase goes into the cargo area under the floor, technically you comply with the requirement.

Unless your view is correct ... in which case nobody can take a trip to anywhere that requires more than one day of travel time.

 

[thallub]

He had no "destination" in New Jersey, he had no reason to be there other than to travel through there, and he never even left the airport -- he slept in an airport hotel.

The guy also retrieved his luggage with the gun inside; in violation of NJ law.

 

[brickeyee]

The law does not have an exception, but the law also does not say that your trip ends if you need to sleep. Suppose you set out to drive from Seattle to Miami. According to Mapquest, that's 3309 miles and requires 49 hours and 48 minutes of actual driving time. In round numbers, a week. Your view would be that, if you break the trip down into 10-hour days, you're making five separate "trips." By that logic, then, you would also have to ensure that you are not only legal in Seattle and in Miami, but also in each of the states and cities where you stop for the night.

So now you want a court to re-write the law?

Unless the idea of long trips came up during the debate on the bill in Congress there is not even any Congressional Record discussion and legislative intent for a court to rely on.

The law (as most) has defects.

Using court action to extend the law is treading on thin ground (the same court action can be used against you in ways you may not favor).

Be careful what power you are wiling to grant the courts, it may not always be to your benefit.

 

[thallub]

The court has already acted on this one. A federal appeals court ruled that the Utah man could not sue the Port Authority and NJ police. The SCOTUS let that ruling stand.

WASHINGTON – Missing a plane connection cost Utah gun owner Greg Revell 10 days in jail after he was stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court without comment refused on Tuesday to let Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_gun_arrest

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The guy also retrieved his luggage with the gun inside; in violation of NJ law.

The FOPA specifically says that it supersedes any state law [when it applies]. The issue is whether or not it applied.

This is where the law is unclear. You apparently agree with Brickeyee that the man from Utah had a "destination" in NJ and that his trip ended simply because he retrieved his luggage at the airport. I hold the view that he was still traveling and was covered by the FOPA, thus NJ law did not apply.

Unfortunately, we will never know on the basis of this case, because the case was not tried. The prosecutor dropped the charges, so there was no conviction. The man eventually got his gun (or was it guns?) back, so there was no confiscation. And THAT's why the SCOTUS refused to reinstate his lawsuit. Had he been convicted and appealed, I believe the SCOTUS would have accepted the case but, since "all" he lost was some time and a "few" thousand dollars, the SCOTUS played the "no harm, no foul" card.

Brickeyee, no I do not want the courts to rewrite the law. I want the Congress to rewrite the law. But asking that the courts apply the law as it was obviously intended to be used is not legislating from the bench. The law was enacted for the express purpose of allowing firearms owners to transport their firearms with them when traveling interstate. Nowhere does the law limit a trip to a single day. The law provides that if the firearm is not locked in the trunk of a vehicle, it must be in a locked case. The man from Utah had his gun(s) in a locked case. It's just NOT a major judicial overreach to determine that his actions were in conformance with the intent of the FOPA and were covered by it.

Why ELSE do you think the prosecutor declined to prosecute?

 

[thallub]

For many years the NRA warned folks about flying out of Newark, JFK and La Guardia with guns in their luggage. The cops in NJ could care less about FOPA or anything else. If you're stopped and have out of state tags they will arrest you if a gun is found in your car.

Don't hold your breath until the US congress fixes this one.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

For many years the NRA warned folks about flying out of Newark, JFK and La Guardia with guns in their luggage. The cops in NJ could care less about FOPA or anything else. If you're stopped and have out of state tags they will arrest you if a gun is found in your car.

I have already acknowledged that I don't care to volunteer as the test case. It's a truism that when the police choose to ignore the law, 'YOU may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." The way things currently stand in NY and NJ, you certainly won't find me telling anyone they should go ahead and fly out of one of the NY/NJ Port Authority airports with a firearm.

However, as far as driving with out-of-state plates ... stay on the turnpike and you won't have any problem. New Jersey state law includes a verbatim (one word is different) echo of the FOPA, and it's included right on the NJ State Police web site. I would not, however, count on small town police or county mounties to be up to speed on it, or to honor it.

 

[Wildalaska]

Funny, when my dad passed in NJ 5 years ago, I grabbed his guns, got a form from the cops that I was removing the guns, and sent my green card wife off to Alaska from Newark with the guns (OK I was there with her until after luggage was checked, my flight was later)

WildnohasslesAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[Aguila Blanca]

However, as far as driving with out-of-state plates ... stay on the turnpike and you won't have any problem. New Jersey state law includes a verbatim (one word is different) echo of the FOPA, and it's included right on the NJ State Police web site. I would not, however, count on small town police or county mounties to be up to speed on it, or to honor it.

BTW, that one word is significant. The FOPA says that if the vehicle doesn't have a separate trunk, "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."

IIRC the New Jersey version says "and" rather than "or." The FOPA would trump the NJ version, legally, but why take a chance. On those few occasions when I have traveled the NJ turnpike with guns and ammo in the car, since I drive a station wagon I locked the guns in their little cases and I locked the ammo in an old Pelican computer suitcase (one of the big, aluminum jobbies).