Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Good reason to have national reciprocity.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Remmah2 Donating Member (971 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:25 AM
Original message
Good reason to have national reciprocity.
You can be a legal law abiding toter in one state and a felon a minute later in another.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/gun_gal_sue...
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
dtexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Real reciprocity: making the toter a felon in both states.
But short of that, toters beware when you cross state lines. And if you get arrested, I'll get a good laugh about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I do it all the time.
Fortunately, my neighboring states share the same laws, except for Oregon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Aldous Huxley had you in mind...



"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." ALDOUS HUXLEY (1894-1963), Chrome Yellow, 1921.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. oh, the poor victims
The poor, poor victims. Imagine the pain, the indignity, the suffering, brought on by being told to leave your guns at home. How have so many survived all these years?

Damn, if I were looking to "maltreat" somebody, telling them they may not promenade around with guns in the public places of my community just isn't the first thing that would come to my mind, I fear. I can think of a whole lot of other "bad behaviours" that might come higher on my list. Like, thousands.

You know, the obnoxious thing is that I'd like to know what Huxley might have said before and after that passage -- whether it was maybe propos of something in particular. But because, I'm sure, that passage appears on half the gunhead sites on the internet, I would have to go find a book and check. Page by page. And I don't think I have that particular Huxley on my shelves. Brave New World, of course, and Doors of Perception ...

Oh, whoops, I see how I might do it. Kind of like that your/you're error I used for tracing the sources of another quotation recently. It's Crome Yellow, not Chrome Yellow. I could follow the breadcrumbs ...

But anyhow, it's available on line.

http://www.online-literature.com/aldous_huxley/crome_ye... /

And the problem I'm having is that a search for the phrase "moral treats" comes up empty every time. Ditto for "psychological luxury", "maltreating" ... both within Crome Yellow and for Aldous Huxley generally. The search function seems to work, since it finds me 14 instances of "bank" in works by Stephen Leacock. And two results for "moral" in Aldous Huxley, one being "morality" in Crome Yellow.

Shall I do a chapter by chapter find in the book?

Nah. You should give an actual citation, as in chapter even if not page.

But what the hell. I did it. All 30 Chapters. Nary a "moral treats" to be found.

I did find this, though, in chapter 16, for "maltreat":

"And which of the Caesars do you resemble?" asked Gombauld.

"I am potentially all of them," Mr. Scogan replied, "all--with the possible exception of Claudius, who was much too stupid to be a development of anything in my character. The seeds of Julius's courage and compelling energy, of Augustus's prudence, of the libidinousness and cruelty of Tiberius, of Caligula's folly, of Nero's artistic genius and enormous vanity, are all within me. Given the opportunities, I might have been something fabulous. But circumstances were against me. I was born and brought up in a country rectory; I passed my youth doing a great deal of utterly senseless hard work for a very little money. The result is that now, in middle age, I am the poor thing that I am. But perhaps it is as well. Perhaps, too, it's as well that Denis hasn't been permitted to flower into a little Nero, and that Ivor remains only potentially a Caligula. Yes, it's better so, no doubt. But it would have been more amusing, as a spectacle, if they had had the chance to develop, untrammelled, the full horror of their potentialities. It would have been pleasant and interesting to watch their tics and foibles and little vices swelling and burgeoning and blossoming into enormous and fantastic flowers of cruelty and pride and lewdness and avarice. The Caesarean environment makes the Caesar, as the special food and the queenly cell make the queen bee. We differ from the bees in so far that, given the proper food, they can be sure of making a queen every time. With us there is no such certainty; out of every ten men placed in the Caesarean environment one will be temperamentally good, or intelligent, or great. The rest will blossom into Caesars; he will not. Seventy and eighty years ago simple-minded people, reading of the exploits of the Bourbons in South Italy, cried out in amazement: To think that such things should be happening in the nineteenth century! And a few years since we too were astonished to find that in our still more astonishing twentieth century, unhappy blackamoors on the Congo and the Amazon were being treated as English serfs were treated in the time of Stephen. To-day we are no longer surprised at these things. The Black and Tans harry Ireland, the Poles maltreat the Silesians, the bold Fascisti slaughter their poorer countrymen: we take it all for granted. Since the war we wonder at nothing. We have created a Caesarean environment and a host of little Caesars has sprung up. What could be more natural?"

Mr. Scogan drank off what was left of his port and refilled the glass.

At this very moment," he went on, "the most frightful horrors are taking place in every corner of the world. People are being crushed, slashed, disembowelled, mangled; their dead bodies rot and their eyes decay with the rest. Screams of pain and fear go pulsing through the air at the rate of eleven hundred feet per second. After travelling for three seconds they are perfectly inaudible. These are distressing facts; but do we enjoy life any the less because of them? Most certainly we do not. We feel sympathy, no doubt; we represent to ourselves imaginatively the sufferings of nations and individuals and we deplore them. But, after all, what are sympathy and imagination? Precious little, unless the person for whom we feel sympathy happens to be closely involved in our affections; and even then they don't go very far. And a good thing too; for if one had an imagination vivid enough and a sympathy sufficiently sensitive really to comprehend and to feel the sufferings of other people, one would never have a moment's peace of mind. A really sympathetic race would not so much as know the meaning of happiness. But luckily, as I've already said, we aren't a sympathetic race. At the beginning of the war I used to think I really suffered, through imagination and sympathy, with those who physically suffered. But after a month or two I had to admit that, honestly, I didn't. And yet I think I have a more vivid imagination than most. One is always alone in suffering; the fact is depressing when one happens to be the sufferer, but it makes pleasure possible for the rest of the world."


Now, I really hope that isn't the source of the sentiment attributed to Huxley, and that people who complain about not being permitted to carry firearms in public are not actually likening themselves to the victims of European imperialism in Africa, the victims of Italian Fascists in World War II ... (My grandfather was a Black and Tan as Huxley wrote that, about the most ignominous leaf on my family tree.)

Can you give us the actual source of your quotation, please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Could have asked right off...
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/belief/belief9.html

You can find out from him, or excoriate him, or both; your choices. If you see a significant diff. w/ regards the spelling of "crome" or "chrome," then pick at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. good god, do you have a clue?
You offer me a source that offers exactly what you gave: an apparently misattributed quotation.

When YOU quote something, it is YOUR responsibility to cite it accurately. You don't copy and paste it from someone who has not done that, and claim to have done a bold stroke of business.

From what I can tell, Aldous Huxley never said any such thing, or if he did, he did not write it in the novel Crome Yellow.

If you can't substantiate your claim that he wrote it, and provide the source so that anyone reading your claim can assess the accuracy of the quotation (which includes the context), then it counts for precisely nothing.

And in civil discourse, you acknowledge that. And you stop doing what you did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. I've found a few mentions that it actually came from Huxley's introduction
to the 1934 edition of Samuel Butler's Erewhon, but I can't find an accessible e-version. It looks to be in my school's library; perhaps I'll remember if I pass by there tomorrow...

(The first mention I found is on the Montana Standard page linked here - 4th column from the left, 4th paragraph from the bottom.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. online
http://www.online-literature.com/samuel-butler/erewhon /

No mention of Huxley in what's there, though.


We get a little fuller version at your source (the omitted text is not indicated in what was quoted here):

The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people that they will have a chance of maltreating someone. Men must be bribed to build up and do good by the offer of an opportunity to hurt and pull down. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior "righteous indignation" -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.


"Men must be bribed to build up and do good by the offer of an opportunity to hurt and pull down."

And if I don't share that opinion ... ?

I do note that in the newspaper you refer to, the New Deal was offered as evidence of what Huxley supposedly said. By a journalist whose Tory editor thought he might be a Red-baiter. ;)


So given that we now appear to have a more accurate and complete version of whatever it is, in what way is a person who advocates making it a felony to carry a firearm in public a person whom Aldous Huxley had in mind, I wonder.

What good is the poster being bribed to do by being offered the opportunity to "behave badly", i.e., as I understand it, outlaw the carrying of firearms in public? Is the poster in question a brainless follower of something or someone? There being no evidence of that, despite how often the allegation is made about firearms control advocates, I'll say no.

Not making much sense, is it?

Frankly, I think Aldous Huxley would be spinning in his grave, along with Gandhi and other worthies pressed into the service of gun militancy.

Huxley was a zealous pacifist.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/people/pp-huxley1....

Politically powerful minorities, pursuing their own interests, also take their countries into war. They may be looking for new territory on which to build, or for raw materials (precious stones, minerals, oil, trees) to exploit. But the most dangerous minority interest is, again, the arms trade. To make and increase their profits, arms makers and dealers may be tempted to do whatever they can to ensure that wars take place - and that disarmament never does. 'What is needed,' says Aldous Huxley firmly, 'is the complete abolition of the arms industry'. And, he says, it is possible: simply, 'abolition will come when the majority wish it to come.'


Not that I'm adopting his positions.

It is simply very clear that he would never have tolerated his words being used in the service of gun militancy, let alone to insult someone whose goal he very obviously shared. Much more likely that he would have been been comfortable applying his words to gun militants.

We all know what Huxley's last words were.

"I told you so."


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. I couldn't find an online version that included the intro, either, and that particular
edition was apparently limited to 1500 copies (I found a few for sale, but not cheap).

As for the quote itself, I'm not making a case for whether it's relevant to our little circus here - my goal was just to find out where it came from (I'm drawn to these little mysteries like a moth to a candle, or a fly to...)

Actually, in the newspaper page, I was more interested in the blurb about the triumphant unveiling of the Maginot Line. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
39. FOPA
Edited on Thu Nov-10-11 03:18 PM by one-eyed fat man
The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Pub.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq., is a United States federal law that revised many statutes in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the drivers compartment, in a locked container.

An example of this would be that someone driving from Virginia to a competition in Vermont with a locked hard case containing an unloaded handgun and a box of ammunition in the trunk could not be prosecuted in New Jersey or New York City for illegal possession of a handgun provided that they did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time.


In fact it was abuses by the Port Authority cops in New York and Boston that prompted this particular provision in the law. It was a regular money maker. Since checked firearms are manifested by the airline all the Port Authority had to do is check to see who was changing planes there. They have done it before.

"The Port Authority blatantly violated Federal law when it arrested Gregg Revell," said Scott Bach, President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA Board of Directors. "Those charged with enforcing the law have a special responsibility to follow it themselves," Bach continued. "Mr. Revells arrest is part of a pattern of similar misconduct by the Port Authority throughout the New York-New Jersey metropolitan areas."


http://www.anjrpc.org/fopalawsuit.htm

The Port Authority doesn't care if they pay 3 million in damages, it's not their money. They are on a crusade, Federal law will not be allowed to kill their unconstitutional power trip.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. That seems to be one of the techniques of the gun prohibitionist crowd.
That is to make more and more legal violations (technical or actual) a felony. There-by making more and more people unable to exercise their 2A rights. That of course is the reason for my answer in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
63. Yeah, peaceful people being beaten with the cudgel of the state!!
Family fun of the highest order!


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good reason not to tote. But, I doubt that will stop those who view guns in public as proper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Nope - sure wont.
My rights are superior to your wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Not only does it not, but we will fix it.
Whether you like it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
46. Are you sure you're not Darby Conley?
Edited on Thu Nov-10-11 05:26 PM by friendly_iconoclast
'Cause most of your posts read like Bucky Katt wrote them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Fuzzy


March 06, 2011
Quote of the Day: Bucky Katt

Thinking implies uncertainty. I'm a know tank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. It is sad that the "little-known federal statute"
is little-known only to the local cops who choose to ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. does your Florida driver's licence
mean you can adhere to the Florida speed limits in Arkansas en route to Oregon?

(Don't know about now, but I got stopped for exceeding 45 mph on an divided highway through the middle of nowhere in Arkansas once ... but sir, my speedometer ... Canadian ... Japanese car ... kilometres ...)

That said, I see a good argument for airports that handle inter-state and international flights being under federal jurisdiction in all regards, with federal rules applying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. That doesn't really make any sense at all.
Proper analogy would be requiring the person with a Florida drivers license to take any driving test questions and on-road graded test components that are different between the two states, before allowing you to drive in Oregon.

Reciprocity does not imply one might ignore state laws based on laws from the home state about where you can carry. (Just as your florida license doesn't mean you get to drive like a floridian in Oregon. Just that you DO get to drive, according to local laws)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. A better question might be," Does a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit ...
allow me to carry the same weapons in other states that I can legally carry in Florida?"


Concealed Carry Reciprocity

***snip***

It is important for license holders to understand that when they are traveling in or through another state they are subject to the firearm laws of that state. We have provided links to the state laws or to the licensing authorities' Web page of each of our reciprocity states so that licensees can do the necessary planning and research when preparing to travel.

FLORIDA'S RECIPROCITY STATES
Alabama (1,3,5)
Alaska (1)
Arizona (6)
Arkansas (1)
Colorado (1,4)
Delaware
Georgia (1)
Idaho (3,6)
Indiana (1,3,6)
Iowa (6)
Kansas (1)
Kentucky
Louisiana (1)
Michigan (1,4)
Mississippi (1)
Missouri
Montana (3)
Nebraska (1)
New Hampshire (1,3,4,6)
New Mexico (1)
North Carolina (1)
North Dakota (3,6)
Ohio (1)
Oklahoma (1)
Pennsylvania (1,6)
South Carolina (1,4,6)
South Dakota (1,3)
Tennessee (1,6)
Texas (1,3,6)
Utah (1,6)
Vermont (2)
Virginia (1,6)
Washington (1,6)
West Virginia (1)
Wyoming (1,3)

(1) While Florida's law allows licensees to carry stun guns, knives, and billy clubs in a concealed fashion, the laws in these states allow for concealed carry of handguns or pistols ONLY, NOT WEAPONS IN GENERAL. Florida license holders are prohibited from carrying other types of weapons while in these states.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.h...



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. okey dokey
No analogy is an equivalency, or it wouldn't be an analogy.

A licence to do thing X in one jurisdiction is not a licence to do thing X in another jurisdiction, unless there is some operative provision to the contrary, I guess.

I do still think that having inter-state air travel under federal jurisdiction is the only smart approach, not just for transporting firearms. And then surely luggage containing firearms should be checked through to the final destination, or overseen in some other way.

One does wonder what the situation would have been if the passenger in question had just decided to get off the plane in NYC and go hail a cab, with her luggage and the handgun in it. Is there something in place to prevent that happening?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. I think it was

I do still think that having inter-state air travel under federal jurisdiction is the only smart approach, not just for transporting firearms. And then surely luggage containing firearms should be checked through to the final destination, or overseen in some other way.


checked to the final destination, but NYPD does not always care about such nicities, which inspired the federal law.

One does wonder what the situation would have been if the passenger in question had just decided to get off the plane in NYC and go hail a cab, with her luggage and the handgun in it. Is there something in place to prevent that happening?

Ticket agent calling the cops? Then she would be violating NYC law intentionally. That is quite different than being in the terminal while the pistol is moving from one plane to another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. actually it doesn't say
Cynthia Berliner, who is licensed to carry a gun in California, declared the unloaded Smith & Wesson at a Jet Blue Airways check-in counter in 2006.


So I won't assume, although it sounded to me like she was presenting herself with the luggage at the check-in counter.

Ticket agent calling the cops?

Sorry, making no sense to me. I asked what would stop her from taking her luggage and leaving the airport. It's a domestic flight. Her luggage didn't have to clear customs. If it was in her custody at the airport, after she got off the flight from California and before she got on the flight to wherever she was going, what would stop her from taking her luggage and leaving the airport?

Then she would be violating NYC law intentionally.

Duh. I think it was rather apparent that my question was: what would stop SOMEONE from doing that? -- if the luggage is in their custody between flights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. That is the problem with
basing opinions on a couple of paragraphs. If her flight did not originate in California, how did she get it in NYC in the first place? In the US if you are carrying a firearm in checked baggage, it must be declared, unloaded, and in a locked hard container in domestic flights. It is very possible that the luggage was not in her custody between flights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. and that is why
I didn't express an opinion. I found the news report sadly lacking in useful information for that purpose.

However, the suggestion has been made here that the passenger and her luggage actually overnighted in a hotel in NY. So it looks like the gun was not checked through, and it strikes me as just odd to allow the local rules to be avoided that way.

But hell, if you can legally haul firearms around by car in NYC, and stop overnight there and all, that a resident of the place isn't permitted to have (or have w/o a local permit, or whatever) ... I don't know, why bother having local laws at all? Laws that apply to the locals but not to anybody else who wanders in, just strikes me as weird.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
40. The fed law in question:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. yes, I gather it's what's quoted upthread
And it strikes me as plain ridiculous.

Just to explain the perspective I'm coming from:

Criminal law in Canada is federal; firearms legislation is criminal law. A permit is needed to possess a firearm, under federal law. The issuing of firearms permits is handled by provincial firearms officers, applying federal law. A permit is valid nationally. It is a permit to possess, not to "carry".

A non-restricted firearm (like a plain old bog-standard hunting rifle) may be transported without restriction, by any mode of transportation, as long as it is stored during transportation as required by the regulations.

For restricted firearms, e.g. handguns, permits to transport must be obtained, specifying to and from where it is to be transported. With very few exceptions, handguns are available only to sports shooters and collectors, and may be transported only for purposes associated with those forms of possession. So a sports shooter travelling from Toronto to Halifax for a competition would obtain a permit for the transport, and comply with storage requirements while driving. Because their permit to possess is valid nationally, it wouldn't matter how many provinces they traversed en route.

Here are Air Canada's rules for flying with guns:
http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/airport/baggage/...

Because the laws and permits are uniform across the country, it doesn't matter if you stop off in Montreal en route to Halifax, by road or by air -- except that you must comply with the conditions in your permit to transport a restricted firearm.

But in the US, dog knows how many gazillion people possess handguns, and there is no way of knowing whether their possession is legal if they come from states where there is no registration. They could have bought the thing from the local drug dealer. They could be drug dealers themselves. (Frankly, given that the airline doesn't seem to require that a licence be presented when checking firearms, the same seems to be true in Canada, but you'd have to be kind of bold.)

So somebody in Arizona could check a handgun properly when boarding the plane to NYC with a ticket through to, oh, Piedmont, NH. And then get off the plane and take their baggage and hail a cab. And get out of the cab and sell it on the street, or hold up a bank.

Yeah, a lot of effort when all you need to do is jump in the car and drive.

And damned if that isn't the whole deal. There are no barriers to inter-state gun trafficking in the US.

But that doesn't mean that a state should not be able to enforce its laws about, say, handgun possession, and that an out-of-stater should be able to wander around the state with a handgun in the trunk when a local could not.

Of course, that's exactly what the "Gun Owners Get Special Treatment And Fuck You" law or whatever it's called says they may do. A state may not enforce its laws against somebody just passin' through. What's wrong with UPS? Or, in the case of air travel, checked through to final destination and handled by the airlines at connecting points, not by the passenger?

If NYC doesn't want people having handguns in its airports, that doesn't strike me as unreasonable at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
60. Analogies and equivalencies.
No analogy is an equivalency, or it wouldn't be an analogy.

Brilliant! Best defense for crappy analogies that I've ever read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. The discussion is over exorcising licenses and certifications, not speed limits. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. oh no, first we're exercising demons
now we're exorcising licences??

I wouldn't even know what it meant if it were spelled right. Exercise a licence? Mm, no. Not the way most of us talk.

If you don't get this whole analogy thing, you might do better just not trying to reply to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. No, we were excising taxes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. No.
does your Florida driver's licence

mean you can adhere to the Florida speed limits in Arkansas en route to Oregon?

No. But it does mean that you can legally drive a car in Arkansas, and in Oregon, and everywhere in between: national reciprocity. You're still obliged to obey the local laws, as you would be with the proposed concealed carry legislation. In the latter case, it would be whether or not one could carry in bars, whether one is required to inform a police officer that one is carrying, etc. It would be the responsibility of the individual to familiarize himself or herself with the relevant laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. Back when this crap started
In the 1970's Federal regulations required the airlines put a huge day-glow orange sticker on gun cases that said, "UNLOADED FIREARMS." This was an apparent attempt to ensure the baggage handlers didn't have to hunt too hard to find baggage worth stealing.

The Port Authority police in New York and in Boston would routinely check manifests for flights with firearms manifested on them. So let's say you are traveling to Africa to go on safari. You've checked your baggage through to Capetown and are waiting to change planes in Logan Airport when you hear yourself being paged to the "white courtesy telephone."

Curious, you proceed to the phone where your are met by a couple of burly Port Authority cops. They "invite" you to accompany them to the baggage area and ask you to identify your luggage. So you compare tags and such and say, "Yep, those look like my bags." Then comes the trick question, "What's in the gun case?"

You are puzzled, don't cops take Civil Service exams or something? There is this huge, garish, unmistakable sticker that says, 'UNLOADED FIREARMS.' Surely they can read, but you confirm that your hunting rifle is in the case, just like the airline manifest says.

Now the Mass port cops tell you you need a Massachusetts permit to have a gun in Massachusetts. Hell, you would not even have seen the case except for them coming to fetch you. You expected the airline to shift your stuff from the belly of one plane to another.

But, while it could be a felony, they were set up to "allow" you to travel on. Pay a $1000 fine, and they even took Visa, Mastercard or American Express.

The passage of that"obscure" Federal statute 25 years ago was supposed to end such abuse. But the Port Authority Police in New York, New Jersey and Boston have arrested travelers changing planes at those airports trying to travel with legal guns in checked baggage in accordance with FAA and Federal rules. They wouldn't even be there except that how the flights connected. The cops wouldn't know who to hassle except that the manifest shows which passengers have declared guns in their checked bags. It's not like they have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out they can ask the airline to show them the manifest on each incoming flight whenever they want to have a little fun hassling folks passing through their "fair city."



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Callisto32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-11-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
64. You're so damn smart you can't convert miles to kilometers and back again?
Anyway, a kilometer speedo would put you going slower than the speed limit if you matched your peg to the number on the speed limit signs, if the signs were in m/h.

I'm tempted to call bullshit on your story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. There's a fly in your ointment
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. as I was saying yesterday
He seems to know which side his electoral bread is buttered on. He's no hit shit generally (see ontheissues), but even his local rightish-wing constituency apparently doesn't go for this one.

From your link, for those who don't click:

In a letter to Boston Mayor Tom Menino, Brown said that he would vote against a bill that would require states that allow concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other's permits. Opponents have described the bill as a "race to the bottom" in concealed weapon law.

"As you know, I support the individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Brown wrote. "I also believe that individual states should be allowed to decide what constitutes safe and responsible gun ownership so long as it does not violate that basic constitutional right."

"Under the proposed House legislation, a national concealed carry reciprocity amendment would obligate states like Massachusetts to recognize that concealed carry permits of other states, even if the bearer of that permit does not meet the requirements established by Massachusetts to receive such a concealed carry permit. I believe that the people of Massachusetts are best positioned to decide what is best for Massachusetts. Therefore, if H.R. 822 or similar legislation comes before the Senate, I will vote no."

Brown has never cast himself as an expansive Second Amendment advocate, and his willingness to flout the NRA isn't entirely shocking, especially given that he faces a tough reelection campaign against Elizabeth Warren.

But the letter to Menino, who co-chairs the 550-member coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is a major setback for advocates of gun-rights advocates. ...


I wonder whom the NRA will endorse in that upcoming race. Hahaha.

Almost looks like a fair number of people in that state, at least, actually do have some concerns about their communities being awash in guns, doesn't it? Enough to make a Republican senator thumb his nose at the NRA. My, my.

See, if the Republicans would just abandon their love affair with gun militants, maybe they'd win more elections!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Except that if the out-of-state bearer does meat the requirements in Mass.
Edited on Thu Nov-10-11 01:40 PM by krispos42
(excluding the state residency requirement) the permitee still cannot legally carry concealed in that state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. oh well
It's a hard life, isn't it?

The judicial systems in some states in the US, or in some individual cases in the US, may meet Canadian standards (if there were a Canadian standard of fundamental justice applicable to death sentences, which is kind of an oxymoron).

We are still unlikely in the extreme to extradite someone on a capital offence charge without assurances against the death penalty, because we have no control over how the process is carried out in another jurisdiction.

Massachusetts has no control over how the permitting process is carried out in another jurisdiction, e.g. whether ineligible persons are actually denied permits.

Given what I was reading about Michigan the other day, and the complete failure of counties there to even report offences by permit holders, well, I think any state may just have some reasonable grounds for concern in that regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. given that
the offenses of these permit holders were felonies, they would be in jail after conviction. If you are in jail, the status of any permits is really academic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. uh
What, automatic prison sentences for all felonies? Weird.

People do get out of jail ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. most of the time, yeah
especially if it is a violent felony. The permits do expire, and then it would be a federal felony for mere possession and would not pass any background check.
If the counties are not reporting, how does anyone know there are a significant number of any felons with CCWs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. like this, I guess.
how does anyone know there are a significant number of any felons with CCWs


http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/special_rep...

The probe found the reports the state has released to the public every year for a decade fall far short of reality, especially on the number of convictions and license revocations. Among the reasons: Gun boards in more than half the 83 counties broke the law by failing to file their annual reports at least once. One county, Shiawassee, has never complied.

Confusion reigns. In some instances, licenses were reinstated after convictions when they were supposed to be revoked. Ottawa County revoked just one license in nine years because of a procedural misunderstanding.

Countless other cases are unaccounted for, either because county licensing boards are not notified of the outcome of criminal charges, or they neglect to take action. Revocations are not completed, so they never show up in public reports.

Take, for example, the case of 28-year-old Estanislao Mendez, who was armed when his companion fired shots at the feet of a victim they were robbing. His permit was suspended, pending the cases outcome. Mendez was convicted, sent to prison for nearly two years, and has been paroled since October. The Kent County gun board has yet to permanently revoke his license. It still lists his case as pending.


If Massachusetts doesn't want to be compelled to recognize permits from states that are that slipshod about who has them, I won't blame it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. That would put that state in violation of federal law.
If only we had a federal department who's job it was to enforce said laws...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. sorry, I should have clarified (in case you didn't click)
That was Michigan; I quoted that elsewhere earlier in the week:

Ten years after Michigan made it easier to carry concealed guns, its mandatory process for reporting who has the permits and who had them taken away is a shambles.

Records are incomplete. Compliance by counties is spotty. Convictions for crimes go unreported.

Its against the law, but there is no penalty.


Maybe you can clarify. Is that referring to the federal law you refer to, and there is no penalty for violation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. Here you go.
Edited on Thu Nov-10-11 05:33 PM by AtheistCrusader
2007 amendment to Public Law 103-159

https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=...

Not entirely toothless, but it is a carrot/no carrot approach. No stick at all.

Not really sure why, personally, I think federal agents should be kicking in doors over this. I happen to live in a state with EXCELLENT reporting compliance, so this tends to be off my radar most of the time.

I have a very distinct interest in ensuring people we KNOW to be ineligible, cannot obtain a firearm, at least through a 'legal' method. (passing a NICS check, even though ineligible, and committing perjury in trying to do so)

Edit: There may well be other laws in play on this issue, this is the only one I am personally aware of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. right, got it
NICS Act Record Improvement Program

... The Act provides for a number of incentives for states to meet the goals it sets for greater record completeness.

First, the Act allows states to obtain a waiver, beginning in 2011, of the state matching requirement under the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant program, if a state provides at least 90 percent of its records identifying persons in specified prohibited categories.

Second, the Act authorizes grant programs described herein, which, pursuant to the Act, are being administered consistent with NCHIP, for state executive and judicial agencies to establish and upgrade information automation and identification technologies for timely submission of final criminal record dispositions and other information relevant to NICS checks.

Finally, the Act provides for discretionary and mandatory Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program grant penalties, beginning 3 years after enactment, for non-compliance with specified record completeness requirements within certain timeframes: after 3 years, 3 percent may be withheld in the case of less than 50 percent completeness; after 5 years, 4 percent may be withheld in the case of less than 70 percent completeness; and after 10 years, 5 percent shall be withheld in the case of less than 90 percent completeness (although the mandatory reduction can be waived if there is substantial evidence of the state making a reasonable effort to comply).


Yeah, that'll fix them.

I wonder what it is about Michigan that it's so non-law-abiding? Or maybe it's the norm and your state is the exception.

This is actually about all information required to be reported to the NICS systems, so Michigan's (and possibly others') non-compliance could go well beyond information relating to people with permits to carry, presumably.

The NICS Improvement Act was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The Act seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Yeah, no, this is EVERYTHING.
Firearms purchases. Background checks of all types, including Adoptions. The whole shooting match.

I'm pretty astounded they are out of compliance to that degree. I was also suprised how toothless the federal statute was. Typical of American politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
56. I saw that in an episode of "Law & Order"
Edited on Thu Nov-10-11 09:30 PM by krispos42
We are still unlikely in the extreme to extradite someone on a capital offence charge without assurances against the death penalty, because we have no control over how the process is carried out in another jurisdiction.

I can understand that viewpoint.

Doesn't change the fact that Massachusetts is being asinine about it. This isn't an issue for, say, driver's licenses. Or vehicle emissions, which is a soar point among the New England states because we have to deal with being downwind of the entire Rust Belt and their coal-burning power plants. Connecticut, for example, has crappy air far out of proportion to our pollution footprint. So I have to pay $20 to have some mechanic shove a probe up my tailpipe or plug a gadget into my car's black box because Ohio doesn't bother to regulate their power plants.

"Oh, we don't have control over the permitting process!" Yeah, this sounds like the same type of shit the Japanese, Chinese, and South Koreans pull to keep foreign products out of their countries.


I stated in another thread it would be useful if we had a tiered national standard for permits. Say, three tiers of increasing strictness, the caveat being that your state had to recognize all permits from states on the same or higher tiers.

Given what I was reading about Michigan the other day, and the complete failure of counties there to even report offences by permit holders, well, I think any state may just have some reasonable grounds for concern in that regard.

Not only that, but how about mental illness reporting? That's why the Virgina Tech shooter was able to legally buy his guns; the State of Virginia was behind on that kind of timely and complete reporting.

Is Massachusetts up-to-date? Are they letting their CCW permitees wander around the 15 other states that recognize Mass permits?

And on a related topic, how are those states on revoking driver's licenses for critical operator failures? I mean, jeez, have you SEEN Massachusetts drivers???

Heck if I know.


Edited to add:

I don't necessarily think that Massachusetts should be forced to recognize ALL CCW permits from other states, IF they were being reciprocal with SOME states. The problem you stated with, say, Michigan is a legitimate concern. But if Massachusetts and the other 9 states that only recognize their own permits are going to continue to be asinine about this, the potential for pushback on a federal level is there. This is not being done in a vacuum. Their stance is no more reasonable than the national reciprocal law being considered at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-13-11 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
65. A 'commonality of interest' with cheap-labor Republicans? Really?
Pray tell, how does this differ from "common ground" with the right-wing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"...You don't compromise with them, and you don't find common ground with them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. Toter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I saw one of those! It was toting tea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. Does not have anything to do with CCW reciprocity
and everything to do with NYPD ignoring a little known federal law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_0000092...
The gun was in declared checked baggage going from plane a to plane b. At least, that is how it looked. It seems logical that she got on the plane in California with the pistol, and was on their way to someplace else.

A California woman who was arrested at JFK Airport after trying to board a plane with a handgun in her checked luggage is suing the Port Authority Police Department for excessive force.
Cynthia Berliner, who is licensed to carry a gun in California, declared the unloaded Smith & Wesson at a Jet Blue Airways check-in counter in 2006.
She and her attorney claim that a little-known federal statute allows an unloaded firearm to be transported between states that allow legal possession of such a weapon.
Port Authority cops arrested Berliner for not having a New York City permit. Her Brooklyn federal court suit claims the officers hurt her shoulder while handcuffing her behind her back.


But if you think she should be a felon simply for going through an airport with no threat to public safety, I have to question your understanding of what being a liberal is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. A little known Federal statute?
Perhaps it's little known in New York City but Florida is well aware of its existence.

Its mentioned on a Florida web page on concealed carry:


Concealed Carry Reciprocity

***snip***

QUESTION 7. I am a Florida license holder and will be driving through several states on an upcoming trip. Some of these states do not have reciprocity with Florida. If I plan to take my firearm with me, what precautions should I take for transporting my weapon in my automobile securely and legally?

INTERSTATE TRAVEL WITH FIREARMS FALLS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL LAWS. The relevant section from United States Code is quoted in its entirety below.

Sec 18 USC 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.

Interstate travel with a firearm is, therefore, permissible as long as the firearm is unloaded and in such a place that it is completely inaccessible (preferably the trunk of the vehicle).

HOWEVER, WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT CITIZENS PLANNING TO TRAVEL WITH A FIREARM SHOULD CALL THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR LICENSING AUTHORITIES IN THE STATES TO OR THROUGH WHICH THEY WILL BE TRAVELING TO OBTAIN THE LATEST INFORMATION REGARDING WEAPON TRANSPORT LAWS. IN SOME CASES, STATE LAW TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER FEDERAL LAW REGARDING INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF FIREARMS.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.h...



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
54. Yeah, that was my reaction as well
"Little known," my ass; it's a law the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey should be intimately familiar with, not least because its shenanigans were a major reason the Firearm Owners' Protection Act was passed in the first place!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. my bad
Little known to me anyway. But then, I don't work for either port authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. Not your fault. That statement was in the linked article in the OP. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. As spin says, the NY Post's words, not yours (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. I'm not clear on the event here: if she was checking in, does that mean she was merely switching
from one airline to another and never left the airport, or did she bring the firearm into the airport (which means she must have possessed it illegally in NY)? If the former, then I agree with those who say the airport should be treated as a separate jurisdiction for things like this, but if it's the latter I can't see that she has a case.

Also, if the statute she's relying on is the one cited by the first commenter at the article:

"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"

then I think she'll lose - checking it at the counter clearly demonstrated that the bolded part didn't apply...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Have to disagree...
Firearm in a locked case? That isn't readily accessible.

IIRC, this happened when her connecting flight was cancelled and she was forced to spend the night at an hotel. Either way, fed law applies as it was not a terminal destination but an overnight stay. No different than passing through NY en route to VT and spending the night in an hotel.

NY and NJ used to pull this crap pretty regularly until they got stomped on legally sometime back around 2007, as I recall...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Logical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #22
57. Honestly, I can get into my travel case in 10 seconds. It is easily accessible!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. On reflection, I think you're right - I was translating "not readily accessible"
as 'inaccessible', which really isn't a valid standard (after all, even a locked case in a car trunk is technically accessible to the owner). If her intention was merely to pass through NYC, and the delay was out of her control, it does seem like the federal law should cover her...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #58
66. It does.
Every time NJ or NY have tried this shit, they lose in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
34. i have flown to several competitions in the NE
and I absolutely, positively refuse to fly through any NY airport because of this happy horseshit behavior.

(yes, I am licensed to carry)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-10-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 19th 2014, 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC