Tea party patriots co-founder arrested on gun charges at nyc airport

Additionally, has Meckler stipulated that he never left New York? Has any verifiable evidence been put forward that he remained in NYC the entire 4 days? Could he have gone to VT, PA, NH, ME, etc on his trip?

He could claim he only went through NY for the airport portions of a multistate trip, and use FOPA.

He could claim that his stays, if any, in NY were incidental to the airline portion of a multistate itinerary, and try to use FOPA - in an attempt to get case law on what defines an allowed stop.

Or he could have stayed in NYC the whole time, and put forward an argument that the complete ban in place is unconstitutional. That would be the best one yet, as far as potential outcomes for the pro-RKBA side... but would be the costliest for Meckler.

I doubt an "Oops" defense will cut water in NY, so I hope that isn't where this is going.
 
I think deep down NY knows this law is indefensible, and that it's days are probably numbered. If they go easy on him, it may be because they realize that when push comes to shove, they'll lose at the high court.

They may rather keep an unconstitutional law on the books as a means to suppress the right, than to win every singe case and risk having it struck.
 
He had the gun at the airport. That is pretty damning that he had possession or constructive possession.
Click to expand...

Meckler had the gun in his possession while in the act of traveling when arrested at LaGuardia and is consequently protected by FOPA.

For constructive possession, it must be shown the gun was in new york state somewhere outside the federally protected umbrella, that Meckler knew it's whereabouts and could have accessed it.

So far, I don't see the gun placed anywhere in this case but at the airport.
 
i can't believe that a lawyer was not aware of the NY prohibition on the possession of unregistered handguns. This stuff has been publicized all over the US for at least 15 years. Federal courts have upheld this NY handgun ban. Like it or not the NY law has withstood the test of time. Bring an unlicensed in NY handgun to NY at your peril.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400739/posts

New York state's handgun licensing scheme does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Upholding the dismissal of a suit brought by an out-of-state resident barred from being allowed to carry a handgun under the licensing scheme, the circuit also found in Bach v. Pataki, 03-9123, that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV "cannot preclude New York's residency requirement in light of the State's substantial interest in monitoring handgun licenses."
Click to expand...

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/new-york-moves-to-defend-gun-law/81209/


Read what a NY City law firm that handles guns in NY City airport cases has to say:

http://www.queensdefense.com/guns.htm#airport
 
Last edited:
Meckler had the gun in his possession while in the act of traveling when arrested at LaGuardia and is consequently protected by FOPA.
Click to expand...

You might try reading FOPA.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000926---A000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 926A
§ 926A. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: 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.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added

It does NOT APPLY if possession of the gun in the starting AND ending state is not legal.

Without a NYC permit the gun is not legal to possess in NYC.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. He made his bed and now he has to lie in it. I wish him luck but the fallout will continue to haunt him.

The last time I went to NY (not on duty) I was completely ignorant of their laws. That would not have saved me had I been caught in possession though. This was about 25 years ago. I would say that with the internet these days you have absolutely no excuse not to know the laws.
 
Most states did not until the recent wave of shall issue and other laws. It's a new revival.

I had a permit to carry in OR which I had to give up when I came to TX. TX didn't have a carry law at that time.

NY and IL will have to be taken down by either federal legislation or a more comprehensive SCOTUS challenge.
 
Seems New York did not want to take their chances in court. Everyone else they prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But a well funded pro 2A rights lawyer gets a free pass. Justice?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/gun-charges-dropped-against-tea-party-leader/

In any case he was smart to plead out. In the end it could have gone on for years. I wonder if they will let the numerous other people who have recently been arrested under similar circumstances go?
 
MTT TL said:
I wonder if they will let the numerous other people who have recently been arrested under similar circumstances go?
Click to expand...
There have been at least three in the news over the past two or three weeks. My guess is that will end like this one. Why? Because NYC does NOT want to have their gun laws tested in court. I'm sure their legal department is smart enough to know that, after Heller and McDonald, their laws will not stand up to scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution, so they'll keep arresting people and harassing them, but I think they'll avoid an actual Constitutional confrontation for as long as they possibly can.
 
If a state does not allow non-residents any mode of carry, does that not effectively create a ban?
Click to expand...

I don't see how, in legal terms, although it does in practical terms.

Basically, one is not forced to travel to any other state. Unless you are required to, by law travel to another state, ALL travel is voluntary. The fact that you may need to go, on business, or for any other personal reason is a matter of personal choice.

And since it is your personal choice, you are not being denied anything by the law. You are choosing to go there, and by doing so, give implied consent to abide by their laws while there.

It is your responsibility to determine what, if any difference in the laws exist, between where you are going and where you live.

That a lawyer does not do this before traveling, and considering the simple fact that NYC has had uber restictive handgun laws for generations, shows a lack of forsight. This does not reflect well on his capacities as legal council, in my opinion.
 
Basically, one is not forced to travel to any other state. Unless you are required to, by law travel to another state, ALL travel is voluntary. The fact that you may need to go, on business, or for any other personal reason is a matter of personal choice.
Click to expand...
No, there is a right to travel freely from state to state at will and nowhere is it written in the constitution that one must leave fundamental civil rights behind.

Imagine a state law that forbade entering NY with a Bible or a Koran. Imagine a state law that said the 4th amendment didn't apply in NY for out of state residents. Or a state law that said you could be traffic stopped without RS or PC, because you have an out of state license plate.

None of these scenarios would survive ANY judicial standard of review, and neither should the denial of second amendment rights.
 
Aquilla Blanca, and others that have posted referencing 44 USC 926, I repectfully disagree. If you are on a trip, you are covered, as long as the starting point is legal, and the ending point is legal...true, we all agree there, no?

Well, if my trip starts in WA, and I tour the whole of the US, by air, train or auto, doesn't matter, I am still on my trip until I have reached my destination, which, in my stated case, is to return to where I started. (think old pfardt in Motor home) Because I stop in NY to visit my wife's relatives does not make that the end of my journey any more than my stop in MN to visit friends, or CA to visit friends, or whereever...a temporary stop is not necessarily the end point of the journey.

Now, even though I still have posession of the NYC carry permit from 1927 for my Colt 38, I still am not going to stop in NYC, I don't want the hassel, but the argument that you cannot stop in NY, NJ MA or any other restricted state using the Fed transport law is just taking it too far...That is not what is written in the law.

The whole reason for article 1 of the 14th ammendment was to cover interstate travel. The case at the time was allowing blacks from the south to travel outside their state of residence, but all interstate travel is covered. State law cannot inpede interstate travel of citizens of the US, that reside in other states...this is what NYC was trying to keep from being tested in court.

Consider a politician running for president..Perry is a good example as everyone knows he carries...in his campaign travels, what is his destination? The journey begins and ends in TX...just like for Ron Paul..and just another reason to vote for Ron Paul..
 
hermannr said:
Well, if my trip starts in WA, and I tour the whole of the US, by air, train or auto, doesn't matter, I am still on my trip until I have reached my destination, which, in my stated case, is to return to where I started. (think old pfardt in Motor home) Because I stop in NY to visit my wife's relatives does not make that the end of my journey any more than my stop in MN to visit friends, or CA to visit friends, or whereever...a temporary stop is not necessarily the end point of the journey.
Click to expand...
That's not the way the FOPA is applied. If you stop somewhere to visit someone, that location becomes a destination and you become subject to that location's laws while you are there. The FOPA was expressly intended to allow you to transit through states where you might not be legal, but it does not cover you to stop there other than for necessaries associated with "the normal course of travel."

I don't like it, either, but that is the way it works.
 
Hermannr,

Your definition of "destination" doesn't even fit common vernacular.

If you're from Washington state, headed out on a 10 day trip and someone asks "Where you going?", you don't say "Washington!" You tell them, "Couple days in Denver, then off too Houston...."

I don't like the current situation either but trying to justify a tortured interpretation of a word to skirt the intent isn't helping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top