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

44 AMP said:
Most folks won't see it that way. Except for an overnight stay caused by a delayed or cancelled flight, the journey stops when you leave the airport, and a second journey begins when you return to fly out. Certainly if there is several days time difference between arrival and departure, it will be considered two different trips, and FOPA will not apply.
Click to expand...
We are on the same page as far as this guy being in the wrong, but I would argue that each journey begins when you leave wherever you slept the night before the trip, not when you get to the airport. For example, for me to fly cross country or international, since I don't care to park my car in an airport lot for a protracted period of time, a trip for me involves a taxi from my house to the limo pickup point, a 2+-hour ride from the limo terminal to the airport, and THEN I get to board an aircraft to begin my trip. On the arrival end, depending on where I'm going, I need to get from the arrival airport to the hotel by rental car, bus, subway/metro, or taxi. The "journey" encompasses all of the above, from the time I leave home until the time I arrive at the hotel where I'll be staying. The trip doesn't start when I arrive at the departure airport, and it doesn't end when I leave the departure airport.
 
I will never fly into NYC, Newark NJ or Boston again, as a matter of fact I will not fly anywhere any more until they get rid of that TSA.

I used to (I'm retired now) fly into/through Newark mostly but also NYC and Boston a least a couple times a year, minimum. Their gun laws stink, even for a traveler. Easiest place in the world to become a felon doing nothing that is not totally legal in the rest of the US (except Chicago) I got called down for one round of .264 that was in my suit coat pocket. What a pain.
 
The liberal anti-gunners will pass on an opportunity to stick it to a gun-toting tea-party leader? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Just hide and watch. This happens repeatedly in New York and fine and walk is the common outcome when there has been no attempt to skirt the law.
 
Fine and walk does not diminish his standing to sue on the large constitutional 2nd Amendment issue here: right to a handgun outside the home for personal protection. Cops busted the wrong guy when they took down the founder of the Tea Party Patriots, who also happens to be a licensed attorney who looks like a regular Joe, not some snake handler sleeping it off in a national park.
 
So when I took 2 weeks off from work and went on vacation I really took numerous trips and not just one? I drove to D.C., flew to London and stayed a week. Then we took the train to Edinburgh for a few days. Then we took the train to Holyrood and the ferry to Dublin for a few days. Then we flew back to Heathrow for the flight to D.C. and then we drove back to Richmond.

And here I thought we only went on one trip while I was away from the office. :) I told people we had a great trip. We left home and were away until we got home. A trip.
 
Yeah. The FOPA is of very limited use, and in a way, it stand as an acknowledgment, or at least an accommodation of what is clearly unconstitutional law.

If, during a long car trip, the particular state in which one reaches the point of exhaustion happens to be NY or NJ, then one must choose risking either a felony or falling asleep at the wheel. Ridiculous.

Every state must eventually have some means to accommodate 'bearing' for any non-prohibited person. But at this point, even 'keeping' is off the table in NY/NJ for more than 90% of the population. This can't be fixed soon enough.
 
So when I took 2 weeks off from work and went on vacation I really took numerous trips and not just one? I drove to D.C., flew to London and stayed a week. Then we took the train to Edinburgh for a few days. Then we took the train to Holyrood and the ferry to Dublin for a few days. Then we flew back to Heathrow for the flight to D.C. and then we drove back to Richmond.
Click to expand...

FOPA is specfific about when it aplies.

From a location were possession is legal, to a destination where it is also legal.

It is silent on intermediate stops, but it implies that you may make necessary stops (gas, probably food, maybe sleep).

How YOU view your series of journeys has nothing to do with how the law may define them.

A trip of an hour to Gran's for dinner, and then returning is two journeys under FOPA.
Staying in NY City for multiple days is not a 'brief' or 'required' stop.
It was the destination for that journey, and the gun became illegal.
 
Last edited:
I would think that, if he were not looking for standing for a challenge, he would have taken a trip to VT or PA at the front end, claimed to have left the firearm there; then after the stay in NYC gone back to retrieve the gun prior to going to the airport.

That would invoke FOPA.

I have to think that since he isn't trying to make such a claim, he must really be looking to challenge the NY non-resident ban.
 
one must choose risking either a felony or falling asleep at the wheel. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It is ridiculous. One can travel with a gun, but can't cease traveling without committing a felony offense. It defies logic completely, and produces an absurd result.

Ridiculous is exactly what SCOTUS is going to eventually opine. State law is not going to be permitted to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right.

This cased is like Jimi Hendrix at the Monterey Pop Fest in 1967. One look, and you know it's going all the way.
 
Ridiculous is exactly what SCOTUS is going to eventually opine. State law is not going to be permitted to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right.
Click to expand...

It's very likely SCOTUS will do no such thing. Since the lukewarm SCOTUS decision that affirmed some limited Second Amendment rights, SCOTUS has denied cert in almost every gun case that has reached it. Williams vs MD was denied cert:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/williams-v-maryland/

In US vs Hayes SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of the Lautenberg amendment:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/02/25/supreme-courts-first-post-hell
 
Last edited:
Maybe hes doing it based on the 2A itself, I have no idea. Lord knows we need more lawyers to stand up to unconstitutional laws because we certainly have way to many unconstitutional gun laws.

It would be interesting to see all the restricting gun laws for each state in some kind of graphic comparison... Anyone know if such a thing exist?
 
FOPA is specfific about when it aplies. From a location were possession is legal, to a destination where it is also legal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"FOPA is specfific about when it aplies."
"It is silent on intermediate stops, but it implies that you may make necessary stops"


You say FOPA is specific. Then you say it is silent on intermediate stops. That's not very specific, is it?

John
 
I think he means that because FOPA does not define the length of an intermediate stop, the default should be anything short of what would require an official change of address.

IE, it specifically does not provide for allowing states to restrict the length of an intermediate stop.
 
Yeah, but if the law allowed him to stay as long as he wanted to he might commit crimes while he was there, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top