Nightmare in Syracuse

M

maestro pistolero

New member
Last year I drove into NY from another State, conducted my business and then flew out of Syracuse.

In NY, you MAY NOT HAVE A PISTOL WITHOUT A NY STATE PISTOL PERMIT. Unless you are traveling directly through from a State in which you may have it, TO a state in which you may have it.

I found this out the hard way when attempting to fly out of Syracuse last year. When I declared it, the airline informed me they had to notify the local police, who then took possesion of my weapon from the custody of the airline.

Now, I've been flying on and off for 20 years, and this was a first.

There were no charges filed, but I had to pay a local FFL plus shipping ($125.00) to have my gun returned to me. The gun was already out of my possession and on it's way back to Vegas (where I'm licensed to CCW).

The officer informed me that up until a year prior, they were arresting people when they attempted to declare it to the airline for having an otherwise legally possessed gun in NY. When I ask why they stopped arresting people, he said that the DOJ sent a cease and desist letter to their Dept. ordering them to change their policy.

I can only conclude that they just wanted to make it a PITA .
 
Why were you surprised that they enforced the law.

Do you often travel to other states with your firearm without knowing the local laws?

Seems like you got off easy and cheap. They could have kept your firearm.
 
Why were you surprised that they enforced the law.

Do you often travel to other states with your firearm without knowing the local laws?

Seems like you got off easy and cheap. They could have kept your firearm.
Click to expand...

Of course you are right. But the tone of your reply makes me wonder if you think Syracuse was justified in this policy. DOJ told them to cease and desist, and what did they do? An end run around the order to make things miserable for travelers attempting to declare firearms according to FAA policy. And I have to wonder what obligation the airline has to even inform the police.

Sure, I was naive about it. That naiveté was reinforced by 20 years of traveling exactly the same way, without incident, including destinations in other cities in NY. And my audacity (like that word?) was supported by the fact that I believed long before Heller, that Keep and Bear, meant Keep and Bear.

I couldn't imagine a place in this country that would forbid a lawful citizen from even ENTERING a state with an otherwise lawfully owned pistol. But, when I learned what the law was, I inquired about getting NY pistol permit. Guess what? Right, you can't. That's a gun ban, which my naiveté wouldn't let me even imagine could be possible in this country.

The pistol was locked in a box in the trunk and separated from the ammo. That's what I had to do when I lived in CA before I was licensed there. I didn't know how else to comply without avoiding a state completely or leaving the thing home, neither of which is constitutional then or now IMHO.

The fact that the laws infringe, and continue to infringe doesn't make them legitimate.

So I will go to great lengths to comply, but not to the point of being 3,000 miles away from any self protection whatsoever.

The last time I did that (before the NY trip) I was in Connecticut the week of September 11th. Remember all the fear and doubt before anyone really understood the extent of the situation? We were under attack and no-one knew whether it was over, or just beginning. I cursed myself for leaving home with no means of protection.

Since then, I have educated myself a bit about the laws, and I was disillusioned for a time. But I always believed that, if SCOTUS ever got their hands on a good test case, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of the individual right. When the vote cane in 5 to 4, I realized I haven't lost all of my naiveté.
 
+1

I've already been through this discussion once on another thread, nice to know I have another fellow who sees it my way.
 
"Of course you are right. But the tone of your reply makes me wonder if you think Syracuse was justified in this policy. "

They're New York cops, and you were in flagrant violation of local law. What did you expect them to do, give you a wink and a nudge? I'm in California, and I have to put up with the same sort of thing, but I do know the law, and I never press my luck.

Tim
 
All I have to say is thank your lucky stars you weren't trying to pass through Broome county. I don't know if things have changed but a few years ago they didn't give a DAMN about the transport laws. You had an unregistered gun and got caught with it, you went into the clink...period!
 
neither of which is constitutional then or now IMHO
Click to expand...
Too bad you aren't a Scotus justice. THe laws suck, most here consider them unconstitutional, but you still have to follow them. Unless of course you are going to openly fight them. You can't just secretly carry where it is illegal and expect anyone to feel bad for you when you get caught.

I realize this was primarily a mistake, although a negligent one. Be careful in the future, you got off really light.
 
They're New York cops, and you were in flagrant violation of local law.
Click to expand...

How is it flagrant? They would have to prove I didn't drive straight to the airport from a gun friendly state. I think that's why they let it go.

BTW, they were actually very professional and even apologized for having to enforce the policy.

A search on my computer didn't turn up the DOJ letter. It was a scanned copy. I think I had my old computer then. If anyone is familiar with it, please send it to me.

You can't just secretly carry where it is illegal and expect anyone to feel bad for you when you get caught.
Click to expand...

I wasn't secretly carrying, I was DECLARING it like I was told by the FAA, and I don't expect anyone to feel bad for me

Thanks everyone. I will be more careful in the future.
 
Probably a fine distinction in the law, but

It may be there is a difference between travelling and transiting (or another word.)

The FOPA laws are intended to protect people who are just "passing through", and do not have any planned stops inside the restricted zones. Car breaks down (unplanned) you are covered. Airline strands you, you ought to be coverd (although in NJ they will get you if they can). Things like this are covered. Local enforcement can (and will) size your property, and some times even arrest you, but in the long run you get free and your property returned (although as you have found out, you can have to pay for it).

Now what you did seems to me to be kind of a gray area, and may not be stictly covered. You drove into the state, went somewhere in the state, and then went to the airport. To me that falls outside a definition of direct transit. Sure they would have to "prove you didn't drive straight to the airport", or would they? A judge might very well decide that leaving the "gun friendly" state you were in to drive to a NY airport (with a handgun) was a clear and willful violation of NYS laws, since you should have flown home from an airport in that gun friendly state where you were. Even if you needed to connect filght in NYS the tranfer of the gun is already handled by the airline, and you are in the clear.

I think you got off lucky, not just easy. You might have wound up having to pay large legal fees as well as for the return of your handgun.

It is really important, when travelling with a gun to learn the laws of where you are going, and everyplace you will pass through, before going.
Many states (especially in the east/midwest) have some kind of permit requirement for gun ownership, and the laws vary considerably.

Mass. used to (and still might) require a FOID (firearm owner ID) card for ALL guns, including BB guns! And the state law made no exception for travelers. People innocent of any crime, other than having a flat tire in Mass on their way through went to jail because of the law. It was laws like this that the 1986 FOPA was passed to protect against.
 
The Blues Man,

There was a time not too long ago that if you were black and traveling you'd durn sure better not the sun set on you in a surprising number of southern towns. It was the law and of course we're all law abiding citizens so does that mean those of us who were born with sufficiently scant pigment in our skins should criticize those of our brothers who were a bit darker if they inadvertently got caught in one of those towns?

On a more positive note, how does one positively and proactively work to change discriminatory laws such as the ones that the maestro encountered on his travels?

Meek
 
I had posted another thread about the need for a national carry law. Now that Heller has been decided as predicted, I believe the need is even more critical. The story posted here reflects that. Others have said that a national law is not possible. I believe that it is, under regulation of interstate commerce. When laws are enforced like the situation here, the effect on interstate commerce is fairly obvious.
The major question that remains is how carry will be regulated, and is it possible to develop a common body of law, like we have traffic law now?
Can we have the equivalent of a universal stop sign in gun law?
Its an interesting, perplexing and worrisome problem.
 
The problem with a "universal carry" law....

Is that it tramples on what is left of state's rights. The interstate commerce clause has been drastically enlarged in recent decades (some say abused, and I do not disagree) to allow the Fed Gov authority in many areas where before they never had jurisdiction.

While appealing is some regards, complete rule by Federal fiat is contrary to the ideals of the Founders. Indeed, their vision of what a federal govt should be is grossly at odds whith what our current Fed gov has become. I, for one, see no benefit to granting them even more authority.
 
Are we granting the Feds more authority here? Or are we asking them to enforce our rights and help us ensure our safety?
 
Last year I drove into NY from another State, conducted my business and then flew out of Syracuse.

...

The officer informed me that up until a year prior, they were arresting people when they attempted to declare it to the airline for having an otherwise legally possessed gun in NY. When I ask why they stopped arresting people, he said that the DOJ sent a cease and desist letter to their Dept. ordering them to change their policy.
Click to expand...

You sir are abnormally lucky. The laws protecting your possession of a firearm while traveling only apply if the point of origin and the destination are both legal places for you to posses it and you make no stops outside of those needed for the action of transporting, like getting gas or using the bathroom. The DOJ letter was specifically addressing airports like LaGuardia, JFK and Newark in the NYC area where people from other states where they were legal to possess the weapon (CT) would drive down to the airport and then fly out to a third state where possession was legal.

That does not apply to you. By your own admission you drove into NY with the gun, stopped to conduct business, and then flew out. The only reason you were not arrested, tried, and convicted as many before you have been was because the police did not understand the specifics of the DOJ letter.

The Heller decision upheld the right to have a gun in the home, affirmed the 2A as an individual right and also indicated licensing was acceptable. NY has licensing for handguns and you don't have one. That I disagree with the NY law does not matter, you were in clear violation of it.

Consider yourself a cat who used up several of his nine lives. If you tried the same stunt at JFK, LaGuardia or Long Island Islip you would be in jail.
 
Advice well taken, and I won't be repeating the error, although I must object to your use of the term 'stunt'. I was not trying to make a point, I was simply conducting myself as i always had, in the misguided belief that I was in compliance.

Now, in view of Heller:
If they require a permit, then refuse to issue it, isn't that a ban just like D.C.?
Do we give up keep and bear just because we're traveling? Isn't a hotel room as lawful a domicile as our home? I doubt that policy will survive in the end, though it may take years to correct.

Musketeer, do you have a link to, or a copy of that letter? Some folks have ask me about it and I was unable to find it on a search.
Thanks
 
The Heller decision upheld the right to have a gun in the home, affirmed the 2A as an individual right and also indicated licensing was acceptable.
Click to expand...
To be precise - the court did not say that licensing was acceptable. They said that since the plaintiff didn't argue that it wasn't acceptable, the Court wasn't going to make a decision on whether or not it was.
 
Advice well taken, and I won't be repeating the error, although I must object to your use of the term 'stunt'. I was not trying to make a point, I was simply conducting myself as i always had, in the misguided belief that I was in compliance.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I should not have used the term "stunt" and apologize.

Let me see if I can find the letter that went to the airports, I have seen it before.

DOJ Letter
http://www.nraila.org/images/DOJltrTSA.pdf

good resource

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=59
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top