« Blackhawk holsters | Main | NFA: NFRTR challenged »
NY case against traveller dismissed
Story here. It doesn't name the person, but I know of several arrests at NYC area airport where someone, for example, missed a connection or had a flight cancelled, had firearms in properly checked baggage, but had to retrieve them and check them in again, and were arrested under the NY gun laws. That's clearly covered under the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, 18 USC 926A. That section essentially immunizes a legit traveller from state gun laws provided his possession was legal where he began and where he ended his trip, and the firearm on the trip is stowed in a certain manner.
Chuckle--as I remember, I drafted that section. The first part deals with firearms being transported while stashed outside the passenger compartment. The second provides for vehicles lacking a passenger compartment. That got in because a good friend was a motorcyclist and when I showed him the draft he said "what about us motorcyclists?" because those vehicles don't have a passenger compartment.
Comments
Wow...don't I feel silly. I've mainly been reading your blog thru an RSS feed.
I had not realized what an authority on the matter you are. I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever need someone to bounce an idea off of. *lol*
Enjoy your blog...
Posted by: N.U.G.U.N. at September 25, 2008 09:41 AM
The really odd thing about the referenced article is that in para 1, they say he was "a client charged with possessing a loaded firearm in Bronx County, New York." (LaGuardia Airport?. In para 2 "The defense is only available if the gun is unloaded". Since it appears that he was traveling with a legally checked firearm, which was inspected by the TSA and found to be unloaded and properly secured, how the hell could he be charged with possessing a loaded weapon?
PeterT
Posted by: PeterT at September 25, 2008 09:51 AM
"...how the hell could he be charged with possessing a loaded weapon?"
Simple answer, he was in NY.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 25, 2008 10:01 AM
"The second provides for vehicles lacking a passenger compartment." Thank you, Sir. You are even more awesome than I thought.
Posted by: Ride Fast at September 25, 2008 11:33 AM
[...] FOPA works for scooter trash. too [...]
Posted by: Ride Fast at September 25, 2008 11:35 AM
> inspected by the TSA and found to be unloaded and properly secured, how the hell could he be charged with possessing a loaded weapon?
TSA could have loaded it for him. Or, maybe TSA didn't actually check. Or maybe the NY cops loaded it for him. Or NY interprets "loaded" as "it's a gun and there's probably ammunition within 100 yards".
Posted by: Andy Freeman at September 25, 2008 01:12 PM
Is there anything in the article about airports or TSA? It appears to me he was traveling by car through the Bronx (on I-95), perhaps between New England and New Jersey, and had the unfortunate problem of coming to the attention of the police. Still doesn't answer the loaded/unloaded thing, but I suspect a screwy NYS/NYC definition of loaded, as does Andy above.
Posted by: Paul at September 25, 2008 01:44 PM
As I recall, OH, which is less restrictive than NY, considers a firearm to be loaded if there is a loaded speedloader or magazine available, unless the firearm or magazine is located in a seperate locked compartment.
So, yes I expect it's a definition thing. Please note that such definitions can also cause problems when traveling by air.
Posted by: Gregg at September 25, 2008 03:26 PM
BTW, it's not just motorcycles (although I carry my pisol in one locked hard case saddlebag and the ammo in the other when I go to the range on it) it's SUV's and StaWags. My old Suburban has one BIIIG compartment, and the glove compartment doesn't even lock. I just carry the ammo in a locked ammo can.
Posted by: bud at September 25, 2008 06:26 PM
The thing is, until someone is convicted and appeals, or the state appeals a case like this, and an appellate court decision is made, NY is likely to keep prosecuting people for this.
Posted by: Gregory Morris at September 26, 2008 06:51 AM
Paul @01:44PM,
You are of course correct, the article cited doesn't mention how he was traveling. I picked that up in another article about this case. I'll have to double check. Good catch!
PeterT
Posted by: PeterT at September 26, 2008 10:20 AM
"...how the hell could he be charged with possessing a loaded weapon?"
Simple answer, he was in NY.
The simple answer is, with some digging, the correct one. NY Penal Law SS265.00 deals with firearms and weapons definitions:
265.00
- 3. "Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver;[...]
- 15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.
Posted by: ZerCool at September 26, 2008 05:31 PM