NYC gun charges dropped. Now I can Speak

[RobertNashville]

Lol, we just have to continue. I copied and pasted that, not really sure who is the author, but I can assure you its not me. And any examples that you or I choose to use to support the right to bear arms, should be of factual value, not fictional ideas to lash back at each others view points.

No, we don't "have to continue" at all...I respond to you posts, and you respond to mine; you can always chose to not do so.

There is nothing wrong with the example I used regarding religion and the fist amendment; the example was entirely on point by drawing a comparison between laws that infringe on our rights as noted in the Constitution (I find it curious that you chose to attack and/or dismiss the example)...I drew the comparison because of your statement where you said..

...We all should support the local laws in this country even if we do not like them...

Based on your statement it appears that you have no problem capitulating to laws even if they are likely an unconstitutional infringement on our basic rights. Is that your position or not?

I ask the question because in my opinion, a position of capitulation is dangerous to all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms...it's a position that I believe should be challenged as a danger to our rights...a danger recognized by Gerald Valentino of the Buckeye Firearms Association when he said that...

...for 2012, we are left with only two true threats to our gun rights:

2. President Barack Obama and his campaign staff – Everyone expects him to aggressively pursue an anti-gun agenda if elected to a second term as president. So, it is vital to the pro-gun community that every possible effort is made to see that he fails to win reelection.

1. The Apathetic, Misinformed, or Anti-gun Gun Owner ( Top Threats To Our Ohio Gun Rights In 2012 )

Edited January 18, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

NM, went on a tangent

Edited January 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[FJCrusing]

If I was being diverted to NYC; I don’t think I would tell anyone. I’m sure they would have some requirement that they notify TSA if someone told them they have a gun. TSA would actually have something to do, and probably be worse than dealing with real cops.

I only flew with a gun once, everything was properly declared. When I got to Orange County, CA my bag came down the carousel with a big red tag on it that said “GUNâ€. There were cops there with drug sniffing dogs going over the bags. They saw it and didn’t say a thing. However, with that tag on it I’m surprised the gun was still in it. I won’t do that anymore.

(That was prior to 911, I wouldn’t even try to check a gun through on a flight now. If I want to take a gun I’ll have it shipped to my hotel.)

I flew from Nashville to Manchester, NH a few years ago and checked my firearm there and back with no problems at all. The ticketing agent only asked if the ammunition was in the manufacturers package and that my firearm was in a secured/locked hard case. Neither airport asked to see or inspect the firearm. Only fill out a small form that sticks to the case of the firearm.

Regarding being diverted to NYC and having a firearm in your possession it seems that the best solution at that point would be to rent a car and drive to the Philadelphia airport 2 hours away which is a much friendlier 2A state than NYC where we also have reciprocity.

[RobertNashville]

I flew from Nashville to Manchester, NH a few years ago and checked my firearm there and back with no problems at all. The ticketing agent only asked if the ammunition was in the manufacturers package and that my firearm was in a secured/locked hard case. Neither airport asked to see or inspect the firearm. Only fill out a small form that sticks to the case of the firearm.

Regarding being diverted to NYC and having a firearm in your possession it seems that the best solution at that point would be to rent a car and drive to the Philadelphia airport 2 hours away which is a much friendlier 2A state than NYC where we also have reciprocity.

I suppose doing the rental and driving to a "friendlier" is the best option but of course you are still likely a "dangerous felon with the intent to do harm" until you have crossed that state line!

As I mentioned a few pages ago, as long as cities and states can have such anti-gun laws; this seems to me to truly be an area where the federal government should step in (with regards to "transporting" a firearm from point A to point .

[Guest Variable374]

Glad to hear that you are ok on that. I've heard the gun laws in NYC and NJ are extremely restrictive. I was in California a few months ago and was talking with a few people at a bar about conceal and carry laws. Seems like people in these ultra liberal areas of the USA don't understand the 2nd amendment.

[FJCrusing]

Found this tidbit on the NRA-ILA site:

Special Advisory for New York and New Jersey Airports: Despite federal law that protects travelers, authorities at JFK, La Guardia, Newark and Albany airports have been known to enforce state and local firearms laws against airline travelers who are merely passing through the jurisdiction. In some cases, even persons traveling in full compliance with federal law have been arrested or threatened with arrest. As noted above in the section entitled "Federal Law on the Transportation of Firearms," FOPA`s protections have been substantially narrowed by court decisions, and persons traveling with firearms may want to avoid New York and New Jersey or make arrangements to ship their firearms to their destination, rather than bringing them through these jurisdictions.

NRA-ILA ::

[waynesan]

"We recognize that he had been placed in a difficult situation through no fault of his own," wrote Judge Kent A. Jordan of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. However, the law "clearly requires the traveler to part ways with his weapon and ammunition during travel; it does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation."

Stranded gun owners like Revell have the option of going to law enforcement representatives at an airport or to airport personnel before they retrieve their luggage. The careful owner will do so and explain his situation, requesting that his firearm and ammunition be held for him overnight. While this no doubt adds to the inconvenience imposed upon the unfortunate traveler when his transportation plans go awry, it offers a reasonable means for a responsible gun owner to maintain the protection of Section 926A and to prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun regulations.

Before traveling to Montana a few years ago and anticipating the possibility of being diverted to Chicago while on my way and having a handgun in my checked luggage, I posted a question on one of the national gun forums on how to handle a situation like this. The consensus of opinion was that no matter what, if I had to have a layover in a city or state where gun posession is illegal, DO NOT TAKE POSESSION OF YOUR LUGGAGE. Leave your luggage with the Airline. If you have to leave the airport and go to a motel, leave your luggage and just go without it and tough it out. Wear the same clothes the next day and buy a toothbrush if you must, but do not take posession of your luggage if there is a gun inside. And from the quote above it seems the court suggested the same thing.

[tnhawk]

+1; last I heard NY is part of the US of A.

It appears some states have taken the cowardly action of suceeding from the Union, while still choosing to receive benefits from our Federal government.

[RobertNashville]

It appears some states have taken the cowardly action of suceeding from the Union, while still choosing to receive benefits from our Federal government.

i think you've hit on something here...there are several places (cities and/or states) who don't what to be bound by that pesky "Constitution" and will ignore it at every opportunity but they are certainly more than happy to take money stolen from the citizens of this country in the form of taxes and doled out by the fed govt.