When is a gun not a gun?
- Thread starter KBP75
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
:sigh:
Even New Jersey (with the exception of the NY/NJ Port Authority Police) recognize the FOPA. In fact, with one important editorial change, the exact language of the FOPA is in NJ statute and can be accessed from the NJ State Police web site. The critical difference is that the FOPA says if the vehicle has no separate trunk, the firearm OR ammunition must be in a locked container. The NJ version says the firearm AND the ammunition must be in a locked container.
There is also a legal opinion on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association web site that argues the FOPA doesn't apply when traveling to or through a neighboring state (such as PA and NJ). I don't happen to agree with that view, because to get there one would have to argue that traveling from one state to another is somehow NOT interstate travel, but the argument is that because the FOPA requires that possession (AND carry) must be legal in the state where you start and in the state where you end, then the FOPA covers only intervening states. Too deep for me.
But the FOPA does require that the firearm be unloaded, and either in a compartment separate from the passenger compartment or in a locked container. So in the incident being discussed, the FOPA could not apply since the mode of transport did not comply with the requirements of the law.
So he's very lucky that ALL he lost was a pistol and some dollars. He could easily have become a convicted felon and lost his RKBA for ever.
Even New Jersey (with the exception of the NY/NJ Port Authority Police) recognize the FOPA. In fact, with one important editorial change, the exact language of the FOPA is in NJ statute and can be accessed from the NJ State Police web site. The critical difference is that the FOPA says if the vehicle has no separate trunk, the firearm OR ammunition must be in a locked container. The NJ version says the firearm AND the ammunition must be in a locked container.
There is also a legal opinion on the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association web site that argues the FOPA doesn't apply when traveling to or through a neighboring state (such as PA and NJ). I don't happen to agree with that view, because to get there one would have to argue that traveling from one state to another is somehow NOT interstate travel, but the argument is that because the FOPA requires that possession (AND carry) must be legal in the state where you start and in the state where you end, then the FOPA covers only intervening states. Too deep for me.
But the FOPA does require that the firearm be unloaded, and either in a compartment separate from the passenger compartment or in a locked container. So in the incident being discussed, the FOPA could not apply since the mode of transport did not comply with the requirements of the law.
So he's very lucky that ALL he lost was a pistol and some dollars. He could easily have become a convicted felon and lost his RKBA for ever.
What if, in response to the question "Do you have any weapons in the car?" the man had simply answered "No comment." Would the officer have cause to search the car? I am not sure that you need to do anything other than hand over your driver's license unless there is clear probable cause.
Just because an officer on a traffic stop asks a question, does not mean you have to answer it.
I have never been asked, but should it ever happen, I would tend to change the subject or say "no comment". If he asks to search the car, I would say no.
Our state patrol can see my CPL when they check my drivers license, but even with that knowledge, l have never been asked on a traffic stop, even when I OC and they can see my carry. Your sidearm has nothing to do with a burned out lamp or any other thing you may have a traffic stop for.
Of course, I don't get stopped very often, but I have been stopped a few times...
Where I live this kind of stuff is not a problem, but should it happen....
I have never been asked, but should it ever happen, I would tend to change the subject or say "no comment". If he asks to search the car, I would say no.
Our state patrol can see my CPL when they check my drivers license, but even with that knowledge, l have never been asked on a traffic stop, even when I OC and they can see my carry. Your sidearm has nothing to do with a burned out lamp or any other thing you may have a traffic stop for.
Of course, I don't get stopped very often, but I have been stopped a few times...
Where I live this kind of stuff is not a problem, but should it happen....
There are several ways to spilt hairs over this kind of thing. In a way it comes down to something like what the defintion of "is" is. But since ultimately, if you go to court, it will be in a court in that state, so that state's defintion will be the one the court abides by.
One could, for example, consider a firearm just a tool, like an axe, and not a weapon until/unless used as such. SO, in your opinion, you don't have a weapon in your trunk, just a tool. And so, you would not be lying to the cop (in your opinion) if you answered "no" when asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle.
However, if the state law says a gun is a weapon (by defintion), and most of them do, your opinion of the proper use of the English language (even if you are an English prof) will get very little traction in court.
You aren't under oath during a traffic stop, so you are not required to tell the truth, although lying is more than a trifle rude....However, lying to the police during the course of an official investigation is a crime most place.
So, it comes down to, is a traffice stop, and questions asked at same an investigation? And if its not, then is lying to the police "hindering them in performance of official duties"? Which is something else you can get in trouble for.
If you give an answer like, "nice weather we're having..." then, the cop might consider your answer "evasive", and suspicious, which may give him probably cause to ask for a search warrant, depending on the judge.
One thing that particularly irks me is the phrasing being used by many police these days. They ask if they can search the vehicle, "for their own safety".
They are standing there with a gun, maybe a taser, and a stick, have training in self defense, radio back up, and have the force of the law behind them. And yet, they are fearful for their own safety, without any clear indications to the contrary?
When they can clearly see there is no one else in the car, what possible inanimate object in the car could pose a reasonable threat to them? And even at that, a search of the trunk or other closed compartment (which is clearly not accessible by me, who is standing outside the car, where they told to to stand) seems to me to be outside any risk to their "own safety".
Of course, I might fit the profile of a known dangerous individual, and so precautions are reasonable and prudent...but....to me, phrasing the request that way is not proper. ok, I'm drifting... enough for now
One could, for example, consider a firearm just a tool, like an axe, and not a weapon until/unless used as such. SO, in your opinion, you don't have a weapon in your trunk, just a tool. And so, you would not be lying to the cop (in your opinion) if you answered "no" when asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle.
However, if the state law says a gun is a weapon (by defintion), and most of them do, your opinion of the proper use of the English language (even if you are an English prof) will get very little traction in court.
You aren't under oath during a traffic stop, so you are not required to tell the truth, although lying is more than a trifle rude....However, lying to the police during the course of an official investigation is a crime most place.
So, it comes down to, is a traffice stop, and questions asked at same an investigation? And if its not, then is lying to the police "hindering them in performance of official duties"? Which is something else you can get in trouble for.
If you give an answer like, "nice weather we're having..." then, the cop might consider your answer "evasive", and suspicious, which may give him probably cause to ask for a search warrant, depending on the judge.
One thing that particularly irks me is the phrasing being used by many police these days. They ask if they can search the vehicle, "for their own safety".
They are standing there with a gun, maybe a taser, and a stick, have training in self defense, radio back up, and have the force of the law behind them. And yet, they are fearful for their own safety, without any clear indications to the contrary?
When they can clearly see there is no one else in the car, what possible inanimate object in the car could pose a reasonable threat to them? And even at that, a search of the trunk or other closed compartment (which is clearly not accessible by me, who is standing outside the car, where they told to to stand) seems to me to be outside any risk to their "own safety".
Of course, I might fit the profile of a known dangerous individual, and so precautions are reasonable and prudent...but....to me, phrasing the request that way is not proper. ok, I'm drifting... enough for now
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Another one they like is, "You don't mind if I search your vehicle, do you?"
You say, "No," meaning "I don't consent to a search" ... but because of the way they asked the question, you actually assented to the search by saying, "No."
You say, "No," meaning "I don't consent to a search" ... but because of the way they asked the question, you actually assented to the search by saying, "No."