Looking to meet min requirement for NJ Transport to PA

[leahcim 680]

The FAA provides for it.

 

The Federal govenment cannot override state laws as they apply to the citizens.

So the Federal Aviation Administration can override state laws at the airport, but the federal govt , under 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq, cannot? And I could legally drive from my residence to EWR and then fly to PHL, but I can't drive directly to PA?

[Smokin .50 1,907]

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

 

Now wer're gonna solve the World's problems, starting with NJ Gun Laws.......

 

Great post leachim!

[woodentoe 14]

Here is the text of the safe passage clause:

 

 

 

§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.

(Added Pub. L. 99–360, §1(a), July 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 766.)

Prior Provisions

 

A prior section 926A, added Pub. L. 99–308, §107(a), May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 460, provided that any person not prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm be entitled to transport an unloaded, not readily accessible firearm in interstate commerce notwithstanding any provision of any legislation enacted, or rule or regulation prescribed by any State or political subdivision thereof, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–360, §1(a).

Effective Date

 

Section effective on date on which Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, Pub. L. 99–308, became effective, see section 2 of Pub. L. 99–360, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendments note under section 921 of this title.

 

 

I notice that is does say any PLACE...not any STATE. This means that I should be able to transport my firearm on a journey originating in NJ either from my HOME, RANGE or GUNSMITH to any other location interstate where I am permitted to possess my firearm. There is nothing in the statute that says I must be transporting it to another RESIDENCE, RANGE OR GUNSMITH and NJ State law has no jurisdiction over PA possession laws. Furthermore, event though the intent of FOPA is described as protecting legal gun owners while transporting THROUGH states with strict gun control. There is nothing in the actual safe passage statute that limits it's coverage to INTERMEDIATE states.

 

It seems clear to me. I'm not sure why the NY Supreme Court ruled that the NYPD is allowed to restrict citizens' freedom of movement and property rights. The petitioner wasn't a prohibited person.

 

 

 

ALSO, THIS

 

§927. Effect on State law

 

No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

(Added Pub. L. 90–351, title IV, §902, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 234; amended Pub. L. 90–618, title I, §102, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1226.)

[leahcim 680]

IANAL, but the plain languauge that has been referenced several times in this thread seems as clear as the summer's sun--the transport is covered under the safe passage language of FOPA. I see no requirement indicating that it only applies to the intermediate states that one is travelling through, only requirement I see is legal possession at point of origin and destination.

18 U.S.C. § 926a:

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.

[TheDon 3]

Again. I think everyone should feel comfortable taking their firearms with them as they travel to America. I do it regularly.

 

Going back to the fundamental concepts of constitutional law, COTUS cannot nullify a State's laws as they are applied within that state. Congressional acts and SCOTUS rullings simply provide an affirmative defense against prosecution. Therefore, most state persecutors will not pursue a conviction for violating the State statute unless they have a way to circumvent the applicability of the Federal law/ruling. I do not want to be responsible for someone betting their liberty on how an anti-gun judge might rule on the applicability of the FPOA within NJ.

 

Enough said. I am going to stop posting on this thread now. All I ask is that we do not represent this as a clean-cut black-and-white case.

I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion, even those who may disagree with me. And, I can see where the other arguments have merrit too.

 

Here are the two sources that I am basing my opinion on.

 

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

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), provided that the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container.^[7]

 

Under this provision, 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 the individual did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time.

 

Hardly Law goes into quite some detail explaining the FOPA. Admittidly, it does not address the situation where the origin or destination states have gunlaws that are more strict than the FPOA. But it clearly describes the the protection as being only for the intermediate states between the origin and destination.

 

2. Interstate Transportation of Firearms

 

In response to reports of hunters being arrested for firearms law violations while passing through a state with tight controls,488 FOPA's drafters inserted provisions to offer protection for such travel. S. 49 as introduced provided that any provision of state or local law "which prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the transportation of a firearm or ammunition in interstate commerce through such state, when such firearm is unloaded and not readily accessible, [Page 677] shall be null and void."489 On the Senate floor, an amendment was accepted which changed this in two respects: (1) the protection was extended only to persons not prohibited by the Gun Control Act from transporting, shipping or receiving a firearm; and (2) the provision that an infringing law was to be null and void was dropped in favor of a simpler declaration that the transportation was allowed notwithstanding any such law.490 The rationale for the former change should be apparent. The rationale for the latter was a concern that, if the provisions that "have the effect" of inhibiting interstate transport were declared "null and void," entire sections of state law might be challenged and voided as to all purposes.491 In this form the provisions passed the Senate,492 and an identical provision was inserted in the bill that passed the House.493

 

Upon transmittal of the House bill to the Senate, the Senate passed both it and an amendatory bill, S. 2414, which greatly affected this section. S. 2414 narrowed the right of travel by providing that it was a right "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 firearms"; moreover, both firearm and ammunition must not only be not "readily accessible" but also not "directly accessible from the passenger compartment."494 The restriction to transport to and from areas where the arms might be lawfully possessed was apparently a counter to criticisms that the bill might otherwise bar arrest of the owner in his own state, under that state's laws, if he argued he was beginning a permitted transportation.495 The second change was intended to rule out carrying in a glove compartment,496 which the Senate [Page 678] reports had indicated would qualify as "not readily accessible" under FOPA.497 On the other hand, S. 2414 seemingly widened the allowable transportation by requiring, not that it be "interstate commerce," but that it simply be "from any place" of lawful possession "to any place" of the same.498 The House passed the Senate bill without amendment.499

 

Enactment of S. 2414 does leave some questions unanswered. Fortunately, its late origin has given us a legislative history adequate to address most issues.

 

Accessibility

The first question is obvious: what is "not readily accessible"? We can easily discard the horrible hypotheticals raised during the House debates on FOPA, that a briefcase behind the seat would meet this test,500 or that "inaccessible in most cases probably means concealed."501 In practical terms, the requirement of inaccessibility is essentially subsumed in S. 2414's requirement that the firearm be stored outside the passenger compartment. If storage in a locked glove compartment was sufficient to meet the accessibility test, as the legislative history clearly indicates,502 the [Page 679] required storage outside the passenger compartment should clearly suffice.

 

Purposes

A second question is likewise obvious. For what purposes may the transportation be undertaken? FOPA itself had no requirements relative to the underlying purpose.503 Opponents of FOPA criticized this lack,504 but did not carry the day; a House amendment that would essentially have required that the transportation be for defined sporting purposes was decisively defeated.505 S. 2414 does insert a purpose requirement, but one far broader than that proposed unsuccessfully in the House; the transportation may be for "any lawful purpose."506 The omission of "sporting" or its equivalent is apparent and would suggest that the transporting party may intend any lawful purpose, including self-defense, at his or her destination.

 

Lawful Carrying at Origin and Destination

S. 2414 would require that the transportation be from an area where the person may possess "and carry" the arm to a place where he may do the same.507 This raises the question of what manner of carrying is being addressed. Carrying restrictions can vary; in some states concealed carrying is banned, while open carrying is subject to no regulation.508 Others require a permit to carry on or about the person, regardless of purpose,509 while others only restrict carrying for non-sporting purposes.510 The legislative history reflects an intention of a simple and pragmatic test: the transporter must be entitled to carry in the way he carries during the transportation; he must be legally qualified to carry an [Page 680] unloaded, inaccessible firearm outside a vehicle's passenger compartment both where he begins and where he ends his journey.511

 

Nature of the Transportation

The shift from transportation "in interstate commerce" to transportation from one "place" to another512 raises an initial question of whether intrastate trips through a locality with restrictive firearms laws might be covered. There is no explanation of the deletion of "in interstate commerce" in S. 2414's legislative history. On the more general question of whether it was intended to reach intrastate trips, the legislative history implies, but not unequivocally, that interstate trips remain the target. One Representative, for instance, mentioned that both FOPA and S. 2414 cover trips "in interstate commerce,"513 but received a response that travelers are protected "after they leave the boundaries of their state or local jurisdiction."514 The responding Representative then, only a few moments later, described S. 2414 as a protection "for interstate travelers."515 Conversely, even with its restriction to travels in interstate commerce, it had been suggested that FOPA would reach travel within a state.516 The better reading would probably be to restrict the coverage of this section to interstate commerce, particularly in light of the preamble's failure to make findings that protection of intrastate trips was necessary to a valid federal objective.517

[Duppie 73]

Wikipedia? You're basing part of your argument on something you read on Wikipedia?.....well that tears it...must be true then.

[TheDon 3]

Last post, really this time I promise.

 

To my knowledge this case has never been tested in a situation where either the origin or destination have stricter statutes than the FPOA (as the FPOA was designed to protect citizens in the reverse situation). So until we have a test case, this is all just a collection of personal (non-qualified) opinions and interpretations.

 

Vlad hit the nail on the head: Does the applicability of the Federal law start at your doorstep or the state line? To my knowledge, nobody has ruled on that yet. Anyone care to be the test case?

 

It might be me, because when I take my kids to go visit my parents in Western PA next month, we will have the family roadster packed with numerous firearms and a large amount of ammunition, all being transporte in accordance with FOPA specifications.

 

ETA:

I just got a PM informing me that there is indeed a test case for the situation where the origin had stricter statutes than the FOP. Guess what? The State prevailed. The ruling of the NY court follows:

 

http://www.courts.st.../2008_05814.htm

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered May 30, 2007, annulling respondent's revocation of petitioner's pistol license and directing reinstatement of the license, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied, respondent's determination reinstated and confirmed, and the proceeding dismissed.

 

Petitioner held a premises residence pistol permit that had been suspended on two prior occasions for violation of the license terms. This time, he took his handgun to Nevada to attend a gun convention, even though the license permitted him to carry the firearm only to small arms ranges/shooting clubs and authorized hunting areas.

 

Petitioner argues that notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation of any state, the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) (18 USC § 926A) permits the transportation of firearms for any lawful purpose between two places where an individual may "lawfully possess and carry" the firearm. Since he was permitted to carry his gun in New York and held a license to carry a firearm in Nevada, he asserts the agency's determination was arbitrary and capricious.

 

Possession of a handgun is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner (Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]). The power to issue a license for such purpose necessarily and inherently includes the authority to impose conditions and restrictions (People v Thompson, 92 NY2d 957, 959 [1998]). The fact that it was lawful for him to carry his firearm to a small arms range/shooting club or designated hunting area is beside the point. Petitioner violated the terms of his premises residence license when he carried his firearm to and from the airport for his trip to Nevada.

 

It is not necessary to permit holders of premises residence firearms licenses to transport guns to another state in order to harmonize the law of this State with the provisions of FOPA. Section 926A permits a licensee, in certain circumstances, to transport a firearm "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." Where the licensee is not permitted by the terms of the license to lawfully carry the firearm at the time he embarks on a trip to another state, FOPA is inapplicable. [*2]

 

Moreover, petitioner testified at the administrative hearing that he had been informed by personnel of the License Division that he was not permitted to take his gun to Nevada without written permission from the Division. He chose to disregard this advice and follow his own interpretation of the law. The agency's determination that petitioner violated the terms of his premises residence firearms license was not arbitrary and capricious.

 

Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

 

Basically the judge is interpreting 926A as applying only if the end/intended-use is legal at both the origin and destination. If this ruling were used as presidence in NJ, you could be screwed if you admit your intent to carry in PA. If you are not allowed to carry a pistol in NJ, this ruling says the FOPA would not be applicable. You would need to cite your reason for transport at traveling to a range or other NJ-legal purpose.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheDon

[Smokin .50 1,907]

IF it EVER gets to the point that reasonable law-abiding folk can't transport their possessions to and from Grandma's house in PA, well then that will be the start of the next Revolution!

[Holeshot 3]

What about Santa on Dec. 25th.

 

"IF" he has a firearm with him.

Is he covered under FOPA or is he covered under a seperate Santa Clause?

[TheDon 3]

What about Santa on Dec. 25th.

 

"IF" he has a firearm with him.

Is he covered under FOPA or is he covered under a seperate Santa Clause?

 

No. The FPOA only applies to interstate transportation within the US. Santa is traveling internationally and may fall under the ATT. From what I'm hearing, we may be SOL for firearms as Christmas presents this year.

[woodentoe 14]

 

ETA:

I just got a PM informing me that there is indeed a test case for the situation where the origin had stricter statutes than the FOP. Guess what? The State prevailed.

 

 

Basically the judge is interpreting 926A as applying only if the end/intended-use is legal at both the origin and destination. If this ruling were used as presidence in NJ, you could be screwed if you admit your intent to carry in PA. If you are not allowed to carry a pistol in NJ, this ruling says the FOPA would not be applicable. You would need to cite your reason for transport at traveling to a range or other NJ-legal purpose.

 

This is Beach V Kelly, the very case I asked about on the previous page.

[vladtepes 1,060]

he carried his firearm to and from the airport for his trip to Nevada.

 

was he transporting it unloaded cased.. or "carrying"

further.. this basically asserts the argument I made earlier that it was all or nothing.. if FOPA does not protect NJ to PA.. then it does not protect NJ to the airport.. or to FL for a week long trip...

 

I am not aware of any cases in NJ.. but I feel if there were to be one the right aggressive defense team would win the case..

 

Petitioner held a premises residence pistol permit that had been suspended on two prior occasions for violation of the license terms

 

further there appears to be more to the story..

[woodentoe 14]

http://law.justia.co...2007-27197.html

 

this is the initial judgment from 2007.

 

 

with regards to prior suspension:

 

On or about July 25, 2003, petitioner's pistol was stolen from his vehicle. Petitioner reported the incident to the License Division, and, following an investigation into the matter, petitioner's license was continued.

 

On or about January 9, 2004, petitioner went to have his pistol inspected by the License Division. It was discovered that petitioner carried his ammunition in the same box as his newly purchased pistol and that he had an expired purchase order in violation of 38 RCNY 5-24 (a) (5) and (6). As a result of an investigation, petitioner's license was suspended until June 9, 2004.

 

----

 

Furthermore, in the case of Beach v Kelly, this is not a criminal proceeding. Beach wasn't charged with a crime. He had his premises permit revoked. He sued Ray Kelly as the licensing officer to get it back. In 2007, he won his petition. Kelly appealed and in 2010, the Appellate or Supreme Court of NY overturned the prior ruling.

[Anselmo 87]

was he transporting it unloaded cased.. or "carrying"

further.. this basically asserts the argument I made earlier that it was all or nothing.. if FOPA does not protect NJ to PA.. then it does not protect NJ to the airport.. or to FL for a week long trip...

 

I am not aware of any cases in NJ.. but I feel if there were to be one the right aggressive defense team would win the case..

 

 

 

further there appears to be more to the story..

 

It always seems to be these less than ideal poster boys that take their cases to the appellate courts.

 

Possession of a handgun is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner. It's all downhill from there.

[vladtepes 1,060]

It always seems to be these less than ideal poster boys that take their cases to the appellate courts.

 

Possession of a handgun is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner. It's all downhill from there. IN NY

 

I agree

[Spartiati 63]

Bottom line is there is no case law around FOPA being used as a defense in the situation of a HG being transported from one's home in NJ to PA for the purpose of legal CCW when being charged for unlawful possession of a HG while in NJ.

 

If NJ decided to try to prosecute someone under NJ law for unlawful possession of a HG while they are en-route to PA for legal CCW (in PA) of a HG, sure FOPA could be used during your trial while you are trying to prove that you are innocent. Remember, NJ gun laws... guilty before being proven innocent.. that is a fact.

 

What is unnerving, is that there is no prior case law on this matter, so whoever goes first will set that for us all. Its just that they will be staring down 10 years in pound town while they are trying to prove their innocence under FOPA with an NJ based judge and jury. Oh and sure you can appeal and take it up in Federal Court, etc. Just say goodbye to your savings, career, life, and whatnot.

 

Just food for thought. Thiss is why I feel it is prudent to have a "going to a range" plan in place when transporting to PA.

 

So because there is no case law it is unnerving? Do you think that in the past 40 years there has never been an instance where a cop pulled someone over for whatever reason while they were enroute to PA and learned there was a hand gun in the car? The reason there is no case law is because it is a non issue. If it were you would never be able to fly out of Newark airport with a hangun which I have done numerous times. This is the exact same thing. They dont ask me when I am flying out to Pittsburgh if I am headed directly to the range and the airport is not an exemption so obviously FOPA applies.

 

Everyone has to make their own decision on this but my view is it is being over analyzed.

[Newtonian 453]

Where do you live? No matter where you are in NJ, 287 to 87 to 84 is way, way out of the way for Milford. Much more direct is 287 to 23 to 517 to 206. Up past Stokes State Forest you'll see a sign for Milford.

 

You're taking the two legs of the triangle. Rte 23 is the hypotenuse. 

[Pythagoras 2]

You're taking the two legs of the triangle. Rte 23 is the hypotenuse.

Pythagoras strikes again! (Not me, the real one )

[mikelets456 78]

Agreed...... far to many paranoid people on this forum.

 

 

So how many of you giving the advice of "just go", carry their handgun to PA with full confidence? I gotta' tell you, when I went to the range in NJ, I would keep the receipt in my gun case, lock my gun in the back and head directly home. However, on the other hand I figured what are the chances of getting pulled over and searched? It was pretty slim, but I was also concerned of the outside chance of getting into an accident and having to leave my car at the scene...that could spiral downhill quickly.

 

I've heard horror stories of NJ cops harassing gun owners, but I've also heard where cops were fine. Just don't fall asleep with guns in your car in a parking lot or make a threat to someone and forget you left your gun in trunk. That will get you into big trouble.

 

Also, I'm amazed at some of my cop friends have no clue about the law. I actually got into a discussion with a State trooper friend...he said I could have my handgun in the glove compartment as long as it was not loaded. I told him "no, look it up". At that point there were a few other people gather around and I could see he was getting frustrated with me so I let it go.

 

Bottom line, I'll give the "I'm not a lawyer" BS, but in the real world I believe it's lawful as long as you comply with FOPA you're "good". The big "IF", is like I mentioned above...if you get a rookie, liberal, thug cop that wants to become a sergeant, it could be a very expensive and horrifying experience. Honestly, the laws are so vague that you could get pulled over 5 times and have a good laugh with the NJSP about your firearm and I could get pulled over once and land in jail....that's the reality of it all.

[n4p226r 105]

doesnt that route take you THROUGH NY.  if so, you are covered.  

[deerpark 83]

Hum... I post the exact same question almost verbatim at PAFOA and got a spot on reply. No shrugs, no rolling just an awesome helpful answer..

 

This is a firearms forum correct?

" I'm specifically interested in meeting the NJ transport requirement ... Not FOPA.."

 

I'm ain't looking to transport a truck load of live stock

 

No need form any other responses... I got what I needed already... And for those who did try to help i do appreciate the effort.

 

You guys need to work on hospitality, especially with new comers. If you want this place to grow it takes effort. Otherwise you end up talking with that same 20 guys for years in the little all boys club.

 

Friend, you gotta expect SOME balls busting.

 

After all, we're from Jerzy, OOOOOOOHHHHHH!    

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZllDjMXSjOE