[dosei]

It is not illegal to fly into NYC with a properly checked firearm.
It is not illegal to fly out of NYC with a properly checked firearm.
It is, however, illegal to stay in NYC with a firearm. If you are simply traveling through, federal law protects you as long as you follow federal law for transporting a firearm. Since Delta is not into law enforcement, they simply called those who are to come see if anything illegal had been done by this man.

Anybody that takes on the personal responsibility of carrying a firearm needs to also take on the personal responsibility of knowing the laws regarding it's carry and use wherever they are or are going.

Fault = Mark Benedetto 100%

[Blackshirts]

Originally Posted by SpringerTGO

I don't disagree that Delta's business is flying.
So why are they getting into law enforcement?

People seem to forget that the baggage checkers do not go along with the bags. It isn't the same guy following your bag around the country. South Dakota baggage checkers live where it is legal to carry so they check it. When he went to return he checked it in with NY baggage checkers where it is not legal. They report it.

Reporting crimes you see is not law enforcement. It is called being a good citizen. You may disagree with the law, but maybe the baggage checkers do not.

Or more likely they would like to keep their job so they do not allow it to pass.

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by swinokur

Read Revell vs Port Authority of NY and NJ. Case law is clear even if the DOJ is not.

Well, it is really not that clear.

The criminal case was New Jersey vs Revell, where the case was administratively dismissed. Administrative dismissals can be for various reasons, but are usually (dismissed) because there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Revell effectively won that one.

Revell vs Port Authority is a civil case where Revell is the plaintiff and the port authorities are the defendants. Revell claimed that his arrest was unlawful and was seeking liability upon the Port Authorities; and violation of 4th amendment rights. He lost that one.

The case law is that you can't sue the law enforcement authorities under these circumstances and expect to win.

As a matter of practicality, if you are delayed (at a location) where you cannot legally possess a firearm as a "destination" - the best advice would be to leave it checked at the airport.

[jph02]

Why does a university president need to carry anyway? I thought the world was all rosy and nice from their perspective?

Seriously, I knew he was in violation and I'm not even planning to travel to NY or NYC at present. As previously stated, it is the individual's responsibility and it doesn't matter if we like the law or not.

I agree it's a valid assumption on the part of the Delta counter person's part that someone checking a gun in NYC could be in violation. Calling the police to make that determination is the proper course of action. Likewise, it is not reasonable to assume Delta's counter agents in SD have any clue what NY gun laws are.

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

I don't know how Delta can be sued.

Simple. Anyone can sue for anything and lawyers are like pirhanna. All they saw was Delta's perceived deep pockets. I just hope the judge throws it out as frivolous and wags his finger at the university president for his idiocy. Maybe the judge should order him to take a class on basic Internet research processes.

[blackjack]

This is definitely a case that proves the old saying about "being educated beyond your intelligence."

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

How about if his travel originated in Maine, traveling by rental car to NYC, by airline to SD?

From Wiki: Firearm Owners Protection Act - Safe Passage Provision:

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 and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s 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.

However Washington D.C., New York, New Jersey, and several other states routinely ignore this provision; arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning travelers who are complying with this federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...Protection_Act

Not that I would necessarily depend upon Wiki for legal interpretation.

Originally Posted by swinokur

Read the attached ruling from DOJ. What you describe would seem to be legal on it's face but...

The guy who checked in with Delta doesn't appear to have been on travel.

IANAL

Assuming that scenario is legal, the baggage clerk from Delta doesn't know the law, doesn't know if he's just driven into NY and complying with the law he doesn't know about. But he does know he's supposed to call the PA when people attempt to check in guns so they can determine if laws have been broken.

Randy

[swinokur]

Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis

Well, it is really not that clear.

The criminal case was New Jersey vs Revell, where the case was administratively dismissed. Administrative dismissals can be for various reasons, but are usually (dismissed) because there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Revell effectively won that one.

Revell lost his appeal because the appellate court said he had no FOPA protection because he took "possession" of his luggage and therefore had access to his fiream.

seems pretty clear to me.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Delta did not have anyone arrested. Delta called the police for what someone thought might be a violation of law. The decision to arrest someone rests with the responding officers based on statutes and procedures, not with someone who calls the police.

Originally Posted by swinokur

Delta did exactly what they are supposed to do. NY law and Port Authority policy is the deciding factor. All airlines at both NYC airports follow the same rules. Check in with an airline in NYC and declare a firearm. Expect a visit from the Port Authority Po Po.

The only person at fault is the guy who didn't do his due diligence.

As these folks said, all commercial airlines operating standard commercial flights out of these Port Authority airports are required to summon the Port Authority Police Dept to verify the person checking handguns is able to possess them under state (NY, NJ) or federal (police, military on orders, fed LE, certain diplomats, certain judges - EVEN FROM OTHER STATES).

At HPN (White Plains airport) the county police does vetting. They are a bit more relaxed than the PA controlled airports (LGA, EWR, JFK, SWF). I have flown out of all of these airports on multiple occasions with handguns. Never had a problem, except one time a busy body made a comment about my Beretta Storm + 3 handguns and the cop shut them up (or down).

- G

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Gallium

never had a problem, except one time a busy body made a comment about my Beretta Storm + 3 handguns and the cop shut them up (or down).

- G

Do tell

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by swinokur

Revell lost his appeal because the appellate court said he had no FOPA protection because he took "possession" of his luggage and therefore had access to his fiream.

seems pretty clear to me.

Only for the civil case - for 4th amendment violations and wrongful arrest.

He never had to appeal is criminal case. His criminal case was administratively dismissed. A defendant would have to be pretty stupid to appeal a case they effectively won. As noted before, administrative dismissals are usually because insufficient evidence to proceed. A person does not have to be guilty to be (rightfully) arrested.

There were two different cases - a criminal case and civil case. There is a lot of difference in the case law for criminal vs civil.

See the difference? I don't know how I can make the lack of clarity more clear.

[swinokur]

But it gives guidance to travelers that FOPA protections are not unlimited and they clarified some of the circumstances of when it does provide protection and when it and does not.

He should have quit while he was ahead.

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by swinokur

But it gives guidance to travelers that FOPA protections are not unlimited and they clarified some of the circumstances of when it does provide protection and when it and does not.

Your cited case does not give any guidance regarding FOPA protection, or lack thereof, for a criminal case. The case I cited (the criminal case) doesn't either - since there was not a decision by judge (bench trial) or jury. My supposition is that the DA didn't want to lose a trial by jury, which would have set a precedent that would have significantly complicated any prosecution of "travelers" with firearms in highly restrictive states/locations. In this case the DA is the one who quit while he was ahead.

Your cited case does indicate that you cannot hold a LEA liable for arrest, or BOR violations under these, or similar circumstances.

Originally Posted by swinokur

He should have quit while he was ahead.

Why? Other than the expense involved? (Where he did not bear the full expenses). It is not like it reversed the dismissal.

Do you think that OJ's loss of the Goldman/Rufo/Brown vs. Simpson civil trial reversed the decision of the California vs. Simpson criminal trial? - It didn't.

[swinokur]

So another court in the same District wouldn't look to dicta if a criminal case were brought before it with similar circumstances?

[PEC-Memphis]

Originally Posted by swinokur

So another court in the same District wouldn't look to dicta if a criminal case were brought before it with similar circumstances?

I don't know. No one would unless it happens.

But I doubt it, or I believe it would be a little value, as this is merely commentary of a judge and usually carries very little authority - even in the same type of case - much less differing types.

[fla2760]

The Sullivan law in New York requires a permit to possess a firearm even in your home.

[DScottHewitt]

Originally Posted by Haasemd

Every ccw person knows that if you are traveling, you have to know if your destinations agree with your states ccw laws. Pure ignorance to not know that every state's laws are not the same. Would it have been nice if they had told him, probably but he should have known better.

This. You have an obligation to know the laws where you are going. And what freaking university president who owns and carries guns has never heard that NYC is a little harsh on citizens carrying without permission?

[wjv]

30 years ago I might have had more sympathy for him.

But now-days, with Google and webs sites like handgunlaw.us there is no reason to be ignorant about the local laws in the State/City where you are traveling to.

We are headed to Canada later this year and it took me all of 30 seconds to find out about the knife laws in the province where we are going.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The president - I'm suing ranks in there with the woman suing the law for PTSD because a cop shot the guy holding her hostage with a knife.

You didn't go to prison, so stay home and talk the defensive football coach (hope he doesn't take you to showers). You would have like the NY prison showers.

[MAGlock]

Originally Posted by greyhoundafw

Is it against the law to own it and transport it in a locked case? Not being sarcastic, I don't know the law in NYC.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Yes! Federal law FOPA, allows you to carry through states that you do not have a ccw for, as long as you are legal to posses at the beginning and ending point. MA has the same requirement, you must have a MA LTC or FID or Non-Resident hunting license to be legal in MA. And before anyone says it, Leo's are already written into the MA LTC laws and therefore are considered as having a MA LTC.