You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tea party patriots co-founder arrested on gun charges at nyc airport
- Thread starter MTT TL
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The intent of the FOPA is specifically to protect the traveler while he/she is en route between two places where he/she is legally allowed to have the firearm. That's where the Federal law applies. The Federal law does not override the states as to their firearms ownership/possession laws.secret agent man said:And anyplace in between. There must be some rational uniform standard for federal law. Each state can't have a different reckoning. Since Congress did not specify any exceptions, none apply.
The lynchpin for FOPA has to do with when does traveling end and staying begin. As most states have an established, articulated time frame in days for registering a motor vehicle in a state they are working in, that seemingly would apply as a starting point. The states are at the minimum bound by their own terms until such time as the Fed establishes a uniform nationwide standard. In either case, FOPA applies to Meckler.
Your argument about where a journey starts and ends does not, IMHO, make sense. This guy traveled TO New York, where he is not legal to possess or carry a handgun (or any firearm, for that matter). He spent several days in New York, then he embarked on a new journey to return home.
Your argument seems to be that it was all one trip. That's his argument, too, I believe. If that's the case, why would the FOPA bother to mention the legality of possession in the second state? If ALL vacation or business trips start and end at home (which they do, pretty much by definition), and if all such trips are one, single journey, then there IS NO destination, and the only criterion should be legality of possession in your home state.
Now use common sense. If you lived in Albuquerque, NM, and you were sent for business purposes to spend a week in New York City, what would you say to your wife and friends when announcing your up-coming trip? Would you really say "I'm going through New York City for a week," or would you say "I'm going to New York City for a week"?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If he was setting up a challenge to the law - might one have a battery of highpowered 2 Amend. friendly lawyers ready and present?
Might one consult with the NRA for instance to set up the test case?
Seems just like a booboo or brain gas emission.
Might one consult with the NRA for instance to set up the test case?
Seems just like a booboo or brain gas emission.
From the sounds of it, this looks like it caught him blindsided. His arrest has no defense as he was clearly in violation for the time he was in NYC. That will be more of an issue than finding his weapon at the airport. The airport is simply where he was caught after being in violation of the NYC law for about 4 days, Sunday to Thursday if I remember correctly.
His best option is to make a deal that also clear NYC of any potential 2A lawsuits after and give up his "standing." He will be lucky to wiggle out of this without losing his license to practice law.
His best option is to make a deal that also clear NYC of any potential 2A lawsuits after and give up his "standing." He will be lucky to wiggle out of this without losing his license to practice law.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
why would the FOPA bother to mention the legality of possession in the second state?
Apparently Meckler's ultimate destination before returning home was Detroit.
Possession anywhere between his home and Michigan and back would be safe harbor under FOPA as part of an ongoing journey.
It will be a hard stretch for New York to sell a pitch the federal redactors of FOPA did not intend for the law to harbor a citizen during stops incidental to traveling that fall within an acceptable time frame.
Last edited:
Spats McGee
Administrator
(Emphasis mine).Alaska444 said:From the sounds of it, this looks like it caught him blindsided. His arrest has no defense as he was clearly in violation for the time he was in NYC. That will be more of an issue than finding his weapon at the airport. The airport is simply where he was caught after being in violation of the NYC law for about 4 days, Sunday to Thursday if I remember correctly.
His best option is to make a deal that also clear NYC of any potential 2A lawsuits after and give up his "standing." He will be lucky to wiggle out of this without losing his license to practice law.
I would suggest that his arrest does have a defense, that defense being: NY's law is in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
4 days isn't incidental. The guy who got nailed for the overnight delay was incidental.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Come on, Mate. You can't have it both ways. His "destination" was Detroit? By your logic, in order for Detroit to be a "destination" he would have to be staying in Detroit long enough to establish residency. How long was he planning to be in Detroit? A few days? Why, then, would you try to argue that Detroit was a "destination" but New York was an "intermediate stop"?secret agent man said:Apparently Meckler's ultimate destination before returning home was Detroit.why would the FOPA bother to mention the legality of possession in the second state?
Possession anywhere between his home and Michigan and back would be safe harbor under FOPA as part of an ongoing journey.
It will be a hard stretch for New York to sell a pitch the federal redactors of FOPA did not intend for the law to harbor a citizen during stops incidental to traveling that fall within an acceptable time frame.
New York was not an incidental stop in the normal course of travel. For Mr. Meckler, New York as a destination.
But just suppose... I was recently on a road trip that involved work-related stops in multiple states. Is each a separate destination, even though I might only spend one night at each stop?
The most conservative answer is "yes."
But it would have been aggravating, I my permit had not been valid at each stop.
The most conservative answer is "yes."
But it would have been aggravating, I my permit had not been valid at each stop.
secret_agent_man
Moderator
in order for Detroit to be a "destination" he would have to be staying in Detroit long enough to establish residency
Detroit was Meckler's final travel destination before returning to his permanent domicile in CA.
Even if his 4-day stay in NYC is not part of a journey, the prosecution has to prove Mecker was in possession of the handgun during those four days.
If he has parsed his words properly, something attorneys are normally prone to do, such proof may not be forthcoming.
And unless the prosecution can show the gun was somewhere in New York during that four days and Meckler knew about it, there can be no holding of constructive possession.
Since he was on airport property with the gun while making arrangements to board an aircraft when apprehended, Meckler had resumed his travels and is in safe harbor under FOPA.
Constructive Possession
Constructive possession is a legal theory used to extend possession to situations where a person has no hands-on custody of an object. Most courts say that constructive possession, also sometimes called "possession in law," exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it.
--United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177 [11th Cir. 1996].
4 days isn't incidental. The guy who got nailed for the overnight delay was incidental.
Maybe part of his grounds will be that the 2A has no limitation, that as an American Citizen has a right to keep and bear arms at home and while traveling or any other reasonable circumstance....
Why do we always assume the laws we have on guns are reasonable restrictions? I understand the laws are what they are but that is not to say they are invulnerable to being negated in the courts (outside the 9th or whatever that crazy court is in Kalifornia).
One day this nation will wake up and find out the the 2A is the civil right that it is and that it is entitled to the same protections as all civil rights.
I get it that I live in the dream world of the constitution means what it says but that doesnt make me wrong...
Last edited:
Do you think the folks in Washington D.C. really care about the 2A or constitutional rights any longer when we have just witnessed the hugest assault on the bill of rights with the unlimited detention bill just passed in the house and senate? There were only 13 senators that voted against this bill. If they can do that to the detention issue, they will have no regard for the 2A when it fits their desires at the moment.
The majority of folks I know here in CA could care less about the right to keep and bear arms since the majority don't even own a firearm at all. The sheople could care less. We are a very small minority that even knows about the 2A in the first place.
Day by day, we keep losing ground. I just don't see a great 2A defense materializing for this man. Take a plea, pay a fine and revoke his standing to sue is the best he can hope for.
I find the discussion on intermediate travel stops simply devoid of content. He traveled TOO NYC, STAYED there for 4 days and then on his return trip was caught with a firearm that was unlawful for him to posses in NYC.
I have read many interpretations of FOPA and found cautions to be careful not to even stop for gas or eat in NY in the past. This man went way beyond a travel stop. He stayed in the city for 4 days and conducted what ever business or pleasure activities he set out to conduct in NYC. He was NOT traveling for those 4 days. He was at his intended destination.
FOPA is not a defense for this man whatsoever. If they wish to throw the book at him, he will be at their mercy, plain and simple. He could easily see jail time out of this situation, conviction as a felon and loss of all 2A rights for life, loss of his ability to practice law for life. This man as it stands right now is in a whole heap of trouble and I can guarantee that his lawyers are not discussing FOPA whatsoever. They instead will be discussing how to get a deal from the DA to drop charges and settle on a fine instead. FOPA will not get him that.
The majority of folks I know here in CA could care less about the right to keep and bear arms since the majority don't even own a firearm at all. The sheople could care less. We are a very small minority that even knows about the 2A in the first place.
Day by day, we keep losing ground. I just don't see a great 2A defense materializing for this man. Take a plea, pay a fine and revoke his standing to sue is the best he can hope for.
I find the discussion on intermediate travel stops simply devoid of content. He traveled TOO NYC, STAYED there for 4 days and then on his return trip was caught with a firearm that was unlawful for him to posses in NYC.
I have read many interpretations of FOPA and found cautions to be careful not to even stop for gas or eat in NY in the past. This man went way beyond a travel stop. He stayed in the city for 4 days and conducted what ever business or pleasure activities he set out to conduct in NYC. He was NOT traveling for those 4 days. He was at his intended destination.
FOPA is not a defense for this man whatsoever. If they wish to throw the book at him, he will be at their mercy, plain and simple. He could easily see jail time out of this situation, conviction as a felon and loss of all 2A rights for life, loss of his ability to practice law for life. This man as it stands right now is in a whole heap of trouble and I can guarantee that his lawyers are not discussing FOPA whatsoever. They instead will be discussing how to get a deal from the DA to drop charges and settle on a fine instead. FOPA will not get him that.
Do you think the folks in Washington D.C. really care about the 2A or constitutional rights any longer when we have just witnessed the hugest assault on the bill of rights with the unlimited detention bill just passed in the house and senate? There were only 13 senators that voted against this bill. If they can do that to the detention issue, they will have no regard for the 2A when it fits their desires at the moment.
My esteemed friend I agree with every word you wrote here but at some point some day this nation or another based off our errors will find out that you cannot be free without arms.
I plan to enjoy that right as long as I can, but clearly, there are so many indicators to suggest we may be the last generation to have that right. Congress willfully goes against the will of the people all the time and are more influenced by the deep pockets that set things in motion in this country. All that stands between us and complete abrogation of the constitution is another Pearl Harbor/911 attack. Many have already called for scrapping the constitution even without a national crises.
God help us when that occurs.
God help us when that occurs.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Dream on.secret agent man said:Detroit was Meckler's final travel destination before returning to his permanent domicile in CA.
Even if his 4-day stay in NYC is not part of a journey, the prosecution has to prove Mecker was in possession of the handgun during those four days.
...
Since he was on airport property with the gun while making arrangements to board an aircraft when apprehended, Meckler had resumed his travels and is in safe harbor under FOPA.
You're still trying to have it both ways, claiming that New York was an interim stop and Detroit was a final destination. If you ever get busted under similar circumstances, be sure you don't try to represent yourself.
kilimanjaro
New member
If he began his journey in a state where he could legally possess the firearm and was ending it in a state where he could legally possess the firearm, a 3-day layover should not bar travel status. If you get sick on your journey, and have to recover, does that make you a felon under FOPA? I think intent is the key. He stayed at a hotel, like any traveler, for a short visit, like any traveler. Does he have to limit his travel to journeys taking less than a day? Can he have car trouble or become ill? Does he have to give up his rights to travel freely and do what he wants like any other American because a firearm is in his luggage?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I believe secret agent man and kilimanjaro are failing to comprehend the intent of the FOPA. And, since kilimanjaro mentioned intent, it's perhaps appropriate to consider it.
The intent of the FOPA was NOT to make it possible for people to carry guns around the country, for self defense or for any other purpose. The intent of the FOPA was to make it possible for some gun-owning person in state 'A' to travel to state 'F' (where the person can also legally possess the firearm), while making a trip through states 'B,' 'C,' 'D' and 'E,' at least one of which does NOT allow him to possess (or carry) the firearm.
ALL the FOPA does is make it legal for the person to transit through the intervening states. It does not legitimize firearm possession for protracted periods within states where possession is not legal, when the person has traveled TO that state. Mr. Meckler was not in transit through New York. He went to New York for business or personal meetings, he stayed in New York for several nights unrelated to travel. In short, he traveled TO New York.
I am not arguing that it's right or proper or constitutional that he (and I) is not allowed to have a sidearm in New York. But that IS the law. And since that is the law, and since legality of possession (actually I believe the FOPA says "carry," which is a higher hurdle) is a prerequisite of the FOPA, the bottom line is that the FOPA does NOT apply.
The intent of the FOPA was NOT to make it possible for people to carry guns around the country, for self defense or for any other purpose. The intent of the FOPA was to make it possible for some gun-owning person in state 'A' to travel to state 'F' (where the person can also legally possess the firearm), while making a trip through states 'B,' 'C,' 'D' and 'E,' at least one of which does NOT allow him to possess (or carry) the firearm.
ALL the FOPA does is make it legal for the person to transit through the intervening states. It does not legitimize firearm possession for protracted periods within states where possession is not legal, when the person has traveled TO that state. Mr. Meckler was not in transit through New York. He went to New York for business or personal meetings, he stayed in New York for several nights unrelated to travel. In short, he traveled TO New York.
I am not arguing that it's right or proper or constitutional that he (and I) is not allowed to have a sidearm in New York. But that IS the law. And since that is the law, and since legality of possession (actually I believe the FOPA says "carry," which is a higher hurdle) is a prerequisite of the FOPA, the bottom line is that the FOPA does NOT apply.
Today, 08:33 PM #97
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 368
If he began his journey in a state where he could legally possess the firearm and was ending it in a state where he could legally possess the firearm, a 3-day layover should not bar travel status. If you get sick on your journey, and have to recover, does that make you a felon under FOPA? I think intent is the key. He stayed at a hotel, like any traveler, for a short visit, like any traveler. Does he have to limit his travel to journeys taking less than a day? Can he have car trouble or become ill? Does he have to give up his rights to travel freely and do what he wants like any other American because a firearm is in his luggage?
No, not in NYC. It is illegal to possess a handgun in NYC. Whether for one minute or 4 days. Obviously, staying in NYC for 4 days is not part of his travel. It is a destination in that travel. Not really a disputed concept by the law at all. FOPA will not be a viable defense Unless he was stuck in the airport for 4 days from a snow storm. In that case, he was still in transit and delayed. In his case, it was planned STOP/DESTINATION. FOPA does not apply.
maestro pistolero
New member
Because he is a high profile defendant, I fear he will not get the minimum treatment a more anonymous defendant might get. I can see the DA wanting to make an example of him.