« BATFE hierarchy largely empty | Main | Paranoia on the rise »
Guide to interstate transport of firearms
NRA has just released the latest edition of its comprehensive Guide to the Interstate Transportation of Firearms.
It includes a section on the suit brought against the NY Port Authority, which is in the habit of violating the protections given by the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Here are links to the opening brief and here's the reply.
Comments
Well thanks for those briefs. Having read them, now I need a roll of duct tape because my freaking head is going to explode.
Do we have a link to the Port Authority's response? I'd love to see their master work of legal fiction.
Posted by: Bill at August 25, 2009 02:50 PM
OK, the trial judge should be impeached for incompetence, and the costs of all follow-on court matters (and legal fees) charged to him....
And the Port Authority clowns should just be fired...
Oddly enough, the TSA goon was the only LE mentioned that did anything right. I guess that proves the saw about a blind squirrel occasionally finding an acorn.
Posted by: Flighterdoc at August 25, 2009 03:35 PM
Oh, and once this case is successfully settled, how about a class action against the Port Authority for those 50+ a year arrests their clowns make? Lets see, one goon and 50, how many goons are there that are ignorant and indifferent to the laws they presumably swore to uphold?
Posted by: Flighterdoc at August 25, 2009 03:36 PM
Thanks for posting those.
It would be nice if we had a federal Department of Justice that was as interested in preventing state and local governments from blatantly and repeatedly obstructing federal rights as it is in creating politically motivated investigations of the previous administration.
Posted by: Eric at August 25, 2009 07:29 PM
Mr. Hardy
What is your assessment of the chances of winning this?
Thanks,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Showell at August 25, 2009 07:35 PM
Every time I read something like this, it reinforces my conclusion that there needs to be one Federal firearms law - and a preemption act forbidding state or local laws. Violation of which would be treated as rebellion against the United States - and suppressed accordingly.
Posted by: Mike M. at August 27, 2009 09:25 AM
One word Mike: Hell-no.
Ok, technically two words. First, under what section of the constitution do you plan to employ such a law? Second, do you really want just one point of control for the hoplophobes to attack? Right now, they have to wage 51 (states plus federal or 57 plus federal if you are Obama) battles and we are winning.
Posted by: kbiel at August 27, 2009 09:35 AM
Is there any reason to hope that New York will stop doing these arrests if it loses the case?
Can the plaintiff sue the State for "false arrest" or "infringing on civil rights" or something else?
In other words, can New York be made to pay through the nose for this travesty?
Posted by: Alan A. at August 27, 2009 11:51 AM
Briefed a year ago and no ruling yet?
Posted by: ED at August 27, 2009 11:57 AM
Isn't deprivation of civil rights under color of authority a federal felony?
Posted by: Lergnom at August 27, 2009 01:21 PM
This is the same crap the the New York Port Authority and MassPort at Logan were doing 30 years ago. That one generation of arrogant and incompetent fools should breed replacements to be more incompetent, more arrogant and unqualified disgrace as a Mall Ninja.
Posted by: Emil at August 28, 2009 07:50 AM
