SCOTUS Declines to Hear Gun Arrest Appeal

[Musketeer]

Yes the law could have been written clearer. Perhaps when we have a President more willing to sign a law which clarifies the situation in our favor we can push it.

Stupid as it is though he took possession of a firearm in a state where he was prohibited from doing so. Sorry but he should never have touched that bag and it was his responsibility to know that.

I am glad the charges were dropped and happy he got his property back but like it or not he was in violation of the law when he picked up that bag. Stupid, yes but it was the law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If we agree that the law is unclear, how could he have been expected to "know" that he should not have retrieved his luggage? After all, he was in transit from one legal jurisdiction to another. His trip did not start or end in New York. Changes of flights and missed connections are common occurrences when flying. It certainly was not the INTENT of the FOPA that a traveler who missed a connection and had to sleep in a hotel overnight could not retrieve his pajamas and toothbrush because his legally-declared and cased firearm happened to be in the same suitcase.

Further, if he was so clearly in violation of the law, I seriously doubt the prosecutor would have dropped the charges.

I do agree that this case shows there are flaws in the language of the FOPA, and I think what happened to Mr. Revell sends up red flags for the rest of us to be aware of ... but I don't think he can or should be criticized for believing that he was within his rights and within the law for proceeding as he did.

 

[jgcoastie]

The specific references describe only an automobile. Unfortunately, that tends to muddy the overall intent of the law.

Not exactly... Though this point could be open to differing interpretation...

....if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded,

Check. TSA ensures firearms checked as luggage are unloaded (or at least they're supposed to).

and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being
transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the
passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:

Check. Cargo/luggage areas are inaccessible to passengers and aircrew.

Thus, this next section is null and void in this argument (IMO). We're really just talking about airplanes and this section only offers additional guidance for instances where the firearms and/or ammunition cannot be separated by a fixed/installed barrier. Think of an SUV, it's all one compartment...

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.

Of course, none of this would have helped the traveler in question as he took possession of the firearms in a state where he was not allowed to do so. I'm just trying to explain where I was coming from with my previous post.

 

[swinokur]

I believe the Appeals Court ruled against him because he tried to use FOPA as an affirmative defense but the court found he had "access" to his firearm while in the hotel overnight. Therefore under NJ law he was guilty. The charges were dropped but he filed under Federal 1983 civil rights violation and lost. He probaly should hve left it at that, but who knows.

It seems like the court's problem was his "access". They didn't even address his overnight stay. This leads me to believe he would have been ok if he had lefts bag at the airport even though he spent the night.

I believe the precedent has been establised in the 3rd circuit at least that the problem isn't stopping overnight, it's access to your firearm. Maybe if it's left locked in your car you'll be ok. But circuit court rulings are only binding on other District Courts in that circuit.

However IANAL

 

[Musketeer]

The prosecutor dropped it because of the outrage over the nonsense of it all. The victim though did knowingly take possession of his firearm in a jurisdiction where he was prohibited by law from doing so. The old "ignorance is no excuse" comes into play. Would a jury have convicted? By the facts alone, they should have. By their feelings and outrage argue scenario, possibly not.

Laws do not have to be "right" or "make sense" to be enforced. If you are traveling with firearms it is your responsibility to know the laws in every jurisdiction you intend to enter, possibly may enter or simply wind up in. If you are uncertain after getting stuck in a place you are unfamiliar with the do not accept the bag and approach the airline with the problem.

 

[orangello]

It is a crying shame and an afront to the ideals of the founders of this country and framers of our Constitution that there are places in these United States where a citizen cannot even be trusted to possess his own legally owned firearms in a locked case, but that is the repulsive truth of the matter. The "authorities" handled things as best they are probably capable of under such ridiculous circumstances. While i would normally be screaming for their blood, the complaintant should have avoided travelling through such an unfriendly and unAmerican area as New Jersey with any status in mind other than serfdom, in my opinion.