NYC Arrest of "defaced" guns?

2ndsojourn said:
Since when is an aiplane not a type of vehicle?
Click to expand...

The court never reached to that. They stopped when the guy was afoot (out of his vehicle).

Footnote 3 said:
We note that our reading of the statute is perfectly consistent with the view that the statute might protect travel that occurs via aircraft or train—each of these modes of travel might be considered “vehicular.” The relevant question is whether ambulatory travel (i.e., walking) through an airport terminal is also protected by the statute.
Click to expand...

The prior case was also in the 3rd Circuit (CA3): Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir. 2010).

Concurring Opinion Footnote 4 said:
Specifically, Revell was delayed in traveling from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Allentown, Pennsylvania, and was forced to stay overnight in a hotel in Newark, New Jersey. Id. at 130-31. Within his luggage, which he collected at Newark Airport after realizing he would have to stay overnight, was a firearm in a locked container, as well as hollow-point ammunition, also in a locked container. Id. at 131. After returning to the airport the next day, he was arrested by the Port Authority for carrying a firearm without a license, in violation of New Jersey law. Id. He brought suit and sought redress under § 1983. We held that he did not come within the ambit of § 926A’s protection because he had his firearm and ammunition in his luggage, which accompanied him to his hotel room. Id. at 139. “Revell thus had access to his firearm and ammunition during his stay at the New Jersey hotel, whether or not he in fact accessed them and regardless of whether they were accessible while he was traveling by plane or van. That crucial fact takes Revell outside the scope of § 926A’s protection.” Id. at 137. We thus concluded that it was the prolonged time Revell had with his luggage that brought him outside of § 926A’s protection because he had ready access to his firearm.
Click to expand...

I disagree with both of these decision, but I am not a Judge empowered to decide such things. Two things. 1) I don't believe that this was the intent of the Congress, however, 2) The Congress could solve this whole problem if they had written the statute better (and they still can, but it won't do these guys any good).

As a final note, at least this circuit is being consistent in its judgments.
 
So the moral of all this is for us not to travel with firearms in the 3rd District if we might have to rely on the FOPA ...

Great. It's a wonderful thing that we're all subject to the same laws, everywhere in the country. :confused:
 
So the moral of all this is for us not to travel with firearms in the 3rd District if we might have to rely on the FOPA ...
Click to expand...

So it would seem.

The rulings point out a crucial difference between our general understanding of what FOPA does, and what it actually does.

We say FOPA protects us from the "bad" gun laws while we travel, if it is legal where we start, and legal where we are going, and generally that is accurate, if imprecise.

What the rulings have shown is that while FOPA "protects" us, it only does so if we do not have possession of the weapon in an area where it is illegal to do so. It is a defense against conviction when the state accuses you of illegal possession, and you actually are not in possession. Otherwise, basically, you are toast.

So, FOPA protection hinges on possession. And possession is defined by whether or not you have access to your firearm, not on whether or not you actually do have it in your hands. FOPA was intended to also cover us in those situations where you could have legal possession, but not physical possession. Fuel/rest stops, for instance, where the gun (cased) is in the trunk and you have access to the trunk (legal possession) yet do not take physical possession (remove it from the case, or the case from, the trunk).

Regardless of the intent of FOPA, the interpretation of what was actually written as law appears to be that if you have the gun in your possession, where it is illegal, you will be charged (and likely convicted).

Carrying the gun into the airport to check it as baggage is clearly in your possession. Both in legal and physical terms.
 
It's also not illegal to go to an airport (outside the "sterile area") with a loaded firearm, as in concealed carry.
Click to expand...

Is this NYS?NYC law?
Here in FLA CCW in an ariport terminal is a no-no regardless of were you are in the building
 
NY State law makes no distinction for airports or almost all other buildings. Typically, the only prohibited areas are the federal restrictions, the state equivalents and universities/schools. It's one of those areas where "anti-gun NY" is actually better than most supposed "gun friendly" states. There are a few weird ones but not like people would assume.
 
Last edited:
NY State law makes no distinction for airports or almost all other buildings. Typically, the only prohibited areas are the federal restrictions, the state equivalents and universities/schools. It's one of those areas where "anti-gun NY" is actually better than most supposed "gun friendly" states. There are a few weird ones but not like people would assume.
Click to expand...

Is this in regards to concealed carry too? Such as if you can get a permit, you can carry it in more places, than you can in other states where a permit is more easily gotten?
 
Specifically to concealed carry. There is no open carry and there is no ownership/possession of handguns without a permit.

Yes, for instance,

Bar/alcohol establishments are not restricted.

"No Guns" signs carry no more force of law than trespassing if caught.

No duty to inform.

Banks are not restricted.
 
There is also the difference between New York (city) & New York (state) to factor in. NYC has been it's own weird little world for ever even within New York State.
 
NEW YORK CITY does not honor New York STATE issued permits. Not for at least the last 50 years, and possibly never did.

The only permits that are valid in NYC are those issued in NYC.
 
That's true, the Sullivan Law. A notorious, explicitly racist law, from a notoriously corrupt Timothy Sullivan, in an already notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall. Passed specifically to disarm the victims of Sullivan's mob friends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top