Bryan Miller on Brian Aitken's Commutation

[njpilot 671]

If you were renting a property (or own property there), you are covered, as rentals are considered residences. Of course, if your case is heard by a judge like Morley, even that might not help you avoid the 7 year slam sentence.

 

 

So you're saying that those of us that check our firearm on a flight at EWR when traveling on business or vacation are breaking the law unless we own or rent the property we are ataying at? I don't think that is so, but I could be wrong.

 

I wanted to know the exemption that allows us to drive to the airport with a handgun in the car to take on a flight. Is there a specific exemption or are we breaking the law since we don't have a CCW?

[vladtepes 1,060]

So you're saying that those of us that check our firearm on a flight at EWR when traveling on business or vacation are breaking the law unless we own or rent the property we are ataying at? I don't think that is so, but I could be wrong.

 

I wanted to know the exemption that allows us to drive to the airport with a handgun in the car to take on a flight. Is there a specific exemption or are we breaking the law since we don't have a CCW?

 

 

you are leaving the state.. state to state transport is a whole separate issue..

[njpilot 671]

you are leaving the state.. state to state transport is a whole separate issue..

 

 

Yes, I know about FOPA, but does that cover you while driving to the airport? I am not busting balls, I'm really curious now.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Yes, I know about FOPA, but does that cover you while driving to the airport? I am not busting balls, I'm really curious now.

 

 

yes... in the same way it covers you while driving towards the border of another state.. the gun is legal where you start.. the gun is legal where you end up.. and (while driving) the gun is legal/legally being transported in the states you drive through.. I imagine the passing through states thing is a non issue 30,000 feet in the air.. lol

[njpilot 671]

ok, thanks Vlad.

[tommy3rd 132]

But that's just the thing... have you ever actually read the NJ law? Handgun possession is patently illegal unless you have a carry permit. That's what the law says. That's what Brian was convicted of. Yeah, there's the the whole next section which carves out exceptions for your home, business, the range, gun store/gunsmith, and traveling directly to/from those places, but what Bob posted is the text of 2C:39-5.

 

The burden of proof is on you, the gun owner, to show that you are exempt under 2C:39-6; otherwise you are charged under 2C:39-5. I'll see if I can dig up the case law that supports that position. Just so we're clear, I don't think it's right. I'm just letting you know how the law gets applied.

 

Technically, taking your gun to a friend's house is illegal possession under NJ law. Nowhere in 2C:39-6 does it say you can possess your gun at somebody else's house, nor does it exempt travel to/from your friend's house. If you get caught, like Brian did, you'll be facing the same 7 years he did. There's also a lot of debate about traveling to PA too, but I fall into the camp of that should be protected by FOPA.

 

ETA: Found the case law. It's State vs. Dunlap http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1981252181NJSuper71_1241.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985 That guy was found to be violating 2C:39-3e (illegal possession of a gravity knife) and the court basically said that the law gives the defendant a way to argue that the knife was possessed for a lawful purpose, but that the presumption of guilt was A-OK with them.

so, every one of us who purchased a gun face to face through private sale have actually broken the law driving home coming from the person's house?

That would truly suck if someone gets arrested doing just that.

[vladtepes 1,060]

so, every one of us who purchased a gun face to face through private sale have actually broken the law driving home coming from the person's house?

That would truly suck if someone gets arrested doing just that.

doesn't the law specifically site bringing a firearm home from purchase as being a reasonable exception?

[vladtepes 1,060]

ok, thanks Vlad.

 

 

no worries.. as always I am no lawyer.. but that is the way I understand the law.. just don't catch a lay over anywhere or you might end up like that guy in Newark or wherever it was.. lol

[njpilot 671]

no worries.. as always I am no lawyer.. but that is the way I understand the law.. just don't catch a lay over anywhere or you might end up like that guy in Newark or wherever it was.. lol

 

Yep, it was EWR and if it were me, knowing what I know now about that, I would rent a car and drive to ABE instead of laying over to check in again the next day.

 

Because of that incident, I would NEVER plan on bringing a handgun on a trip if I had to fly through Chicago, LGA or JFK.

[BigHayden 77]

So you're saying that those of us that check our firearm on a flight at EWR when traveling on business or vacation are breaking the law unless we own or rent the property we are ataying at? I don't think that is so, but I could be wrong.

 

I wanted to know the exemption that allows us to drive to the airport with a handgun in the car to take on a flight. Is there a specific exemption or are we breaking the law since we don't have a CCW?

 

I suppose I should've known better... a guy named njpilot using "TLA"s (Three Letter Acronyms, for the rest of you...) would be talking about an airport and not a beach resort. I work for the FAA, so I really should've known better.

 

But to answer your actual question, I suppose that traveling to/from the airport should be covered by FOPA, just like driving to PA.

[Bob B 103]

doesn't the law specifically site bringing a firearm home from purchase as being a reasonable exception?

 

e.Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm, or from carrying the same, in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section, from any place of purchase to his residence or place of business, between his dwelling and his place of business, between one place of business or residence and another when moving, or between his dwelling or place of business and place where such firearms are repaired, for the purpose of repair. For the purposes of this section, a place of business shall be deemed to be a fixed location.

 

The way I read it, you can go to your friends house, purchase the handgun and drive home, but your friend can't drive to your house to sell you the gun.

[njpilot 671]

I suppose I should've known better... a guy named njpilot using "TLA"s (Three Letter Acronyms, for the rest of you...) would be talking about an airport and not a beach resort. I work for the FAA, so I really should've known better.

 

But to answer your actual question, I suppose that traveling to/from the airport should be covered by FOPA, just like driving to PA.

 

 

LOL, sorry about that. What beach resort were you thinking of?

[BigHayden 77]

LOL, sorry about that. What beach resort were you thinking of?

 

I'm from South Jersey... I don't know all the places up north, so I just ASSumed it was someplace I hadn't heard of.

[djg0770 481]

I suppose that traveling to/from the airport should be covered by FOPA, just like driving to PA.

 

Unfortunately (and not to flame BigH) this is all supposition. It really doesn't matter what the law says, it matters what the DA, the AG, the Judiciary, and everyone else (except us little folk) thinks or has to say about it that effects us.

[ianargent 7]

FOPA only covers you outside your start and destination states - that's when you're travelling interstate. When I drive to VA to visit my folks and shoot athte NRA range, I get into PA ASAP

[BigHayden 77]

Unfortunately (and not to flame BigH) this is all supposition. It really doesn't matter what the law says, it matters what the DA, the AG, the Judiciary, and everyone else (except us little folk) thinks or has to say about it that effects us.

 

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just said what I was thinking. IANAL.

 

FOPA only covers you outside your start and destination states - that's when you're travelling interstate. When I drive to VA to visit my folks and shoot athte NRA range, I get into PA ASAP

 

I've heard that argument... Unfortunately, like djg0770 says, it doesn't matter what we say/think. It only matters what the prosecution thinks (unless we can get NJ's laws cleared up... then it wouldn't matter anymore).

[Malsua 1,422]

I'm of the opinion that in cases where FOPA probably covers you, the state of NJ can inflict a lot of pain before you're vindicated under FOPA. I.E. You can be 100% within your rights under FOPA but the state can still detain you and charge you with whatever statutes they've decided you're guilty of violating. In such an event, the case will ultimately get dropped but there's a long period of insanity to get through first.

[NJ609 22]

I'm of the opinion that in cases where FOPA probably covers you, the state of NJ can inflict a lot of pain before you're vindicated under FOPA. I.E. You can be 100% within your rights under FOPA but the state can still detain you and charge you with whatever statutes they've decided you're guilty of violating. In such an event, the case will ultimately get dropped but there's a long period of insanity to get through first.

 

I never understood this mindset the state tends to have. Why go through this at great tax payer expense and go after a law abiding citizen?

 

The only reason I can think of is that they want complete control over everyone's lives and in a case like this they are creating an object lesson for you taking part in an activity that while legal, they decidedly do not approve of.... I don't wear tin foil, but there's no other logical explanation IMO. (Don't give me that they are ignorant of the actual laws, this behavior starts at the top and filters down based on the views of the anti majority who runs this state.)

[Malsua 1,422]

I never understood this mindset the state tends to have. Why go through this at great tax payer expense and go after a law abiding citizen?

 

The only reason I can think of is that they want complete control over everyone's lives and in a case like this they are creating an object lesson for you taking part in an activity that while legal, they decidedly do not approve of.... I don't wear tin foil, but there's no other logical explanation IMO. (Don't give me that they are ignorant of the actual laws, this behavior starts at the top and filters down based on the views of the anti majority who runs this state.)

 

I can tell you exactly what it is. It's about personal gain when they pursue case that they suspect will be overturned. Prosecutors don't see you as a person, they see you as a case. Most are regular people and go through the motions on cases that have to be prosecuted. On occasion though, a case comes through that can be quite a feather in the cap. The upside for them far outweighs the downside. Political favor, a better job, a bench somewhere or other considerations are all brought to bear. It doesn't matter that they aren't serving the interest of the people any longer or that they will ruin someone's life no differently than if they put a bullet in their head. What matters is that in 5 years when they are up for a judgeship, they get tapped because they towed the line against the dark forces.

 

It is insane and the people that engage in it should be shamed from society but it continues to happen.

[djg0770 481]

they get tapped because they towed the line against the dark forces.

 

Toe the line - comes from toe to the mark. So the right phrase would be "...they toed the line..."

[Malsua 1,422]

Toe the line - comes from toe to the mark. So the right phrase would be "...they toed the line..."

 

I meant they were all pulling in the same direction. They towed they line together as in a tug of war.

[ready1aim2misfire3 0]

Hi, noob here....saw all the commentary re: airports and posession, and thought I would share this comment post from a person called George on a news web article about Brian Aitken.---

 

"Federal law 18 USC 926A entitles a person to transport a firearm; however, people have been arrested for having an unregistered handgun when flying out of N.Y. airports. In 2005, Gregg C. Revell was traveling through Newark Airport but because of a missed flight he was given his luggage that included a properly checked firearm and he was forced to spend the night in New Jersey. When he returned to the airport the following day and checked his handgun he was arrested for illegal possession. Mr. Revell lost his lawsuit after The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Gregg C. Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, [200] held that “Section 926A does not apply to Revell because his firearm and ammunition were readily accessible to him during his stay in New Jersey.” This opinion will apply to NY airports. If you miss a flight or for any other reason your flight is interrupted and the airline tries to return you luggage that includes a checked firearm, you can not take possession of the firearm if you are taking a latter flight. Traveling through New York City, even with a license issued from another jurisdiction within New York State, must be done carefully (locked box, in vehicle’s trunk, no unnecessary stops). "