So much for that
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 18th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
So it’s an injustice system now. Good to know, I can plan accordingly.
January 18th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
SCOTUS = COWARD
January 18th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
New rule for gunnies: No connecting flights in NJ. (And NY, IL, CA, and any other state that requires licensing)
January 18th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
What, you expected Your Elected Betters and Their Minions to admit culpability?
January 18th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Maybe he should have sued the airline?
January 18th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
So apparently FOPA ’86 has no purpose other than prohibiting us peasants from acquiring full auto weaponry. Am I reading that correctly?
January 18th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Flights get diverted all the time. Just because your itinerary doesn’t pass through the anti-freedom zones doesn’t mean you won’t. If you must fly ship your firearms via UPS. If you check them, do not take possession of your bags until your final destination. Be prepared to bid a fond farewell to your firearm if necessary, but do not touch your bag.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Simple Solution: invade and liberate NJ. If the cast of “Jersey Shore” become collateral casualties, all the better.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Aeronathan: It looks like it got them to drop the criminal charges – this was just asking permission to sue. He should have gotten it, but at least he’s not a felon.
January 18th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Stop me if you’ve heard this: I hate this state.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Okay, now that I’m not commenting from my phone…
The bar for this kind of lawsuit is set pretty high – it has to be knowingly in obvious contradiction of the law (of course, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” only holds true for us peons). Unfortunately, this was a situation that was not clearly addressed in FOPA ’86 – as the 3rd Circuit Court judge noted, the law “does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation.” Since it doesn’t look like there was any significant prior case law, either, then NJ met the requirements for immunity. SCOTUS didn’t really have any grounds under the law and its own precedents to let it move forward (under current interpretations of the Second Amendment).
This is an issue that Congress needs to address. Simply clarifying the law in these circumstances would prevent this kind of dismissal (if not the original arrest) from happening again. Giving it some teeth would be even better.
Of course, stripping NJ of its defacto gun ban would be best, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
January 18th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Those penumbras never emanate when you need them to, do they…
January 18th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Unless it’s an emergency, I refuse to fly, and will spend the extra day or so and drive. If I need to send a firearm out of state, I’ll ship it commercial with all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed just to cover my butt. Plus, I have been known to bypass states that refuse to honor CCW permits, but will honor silly laws like Gay Marriages. “Full Faith and Credit” doesn’t mean each state gets to pick and chose what laws they must honor.
January 18th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Where’s Tony Soprano when you need him most?
January 18th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Innocent till proven gun owner.
January 18th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
This needs to go screaming to Chris Christies desk, asap.
January 18th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Somehow, I don’t think Christie gives much of a damn…
January 18th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Pretty hard to get the popo to admit error or have the courts slap them if in error. I would have got on the bus and let the airlines handle it. They usually don’t lose a bag, they just misplace them temporaily and since the gun was declared on check in you are covered for loss. Unless it is the pistol your great grand daddy had at appomatix.
SCOTUS really can’t do much as it was mentioned there is not much case law for this to proceed.
Bad deal all around.
January 18th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
What Jake said. FOPA clearly does not apply in this case. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t read it. There is nothing in FOPA about protecting overnight possession in a hotel.
Why didn’t his lawyer appeal on general 2A rights grounds given Heller? The FOPA angle was guaranteed to lose.
January 18th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Original case predates Heller. And for all the airport is in NJ, the cops were from Port Authority, not NJ. Also, civil suit, not criminal.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:53 am
#11 +1!
Exactly right.
January 19th, 2011 at 4:23 am
Thanks Ian. I still think he was crazy to pursue a FOPA case, but each to their own.
In the long run this loss is academic since the NJ gun laws days are numbered.
January 19th, 2011 at 8:33 am
His case was against the actual cops, not against the government – he was suing to get damages for having his civil rights violated (Section 1983 suit IIRC). I suspect it’d have been different if he has actually been prosecuted – which he wasn’t.
I’ll have to say, this is a case for the judges *not* legislating from the bench. The law really is unclear; like so many other of our federal firearms laws. Again, that wasn’t what the suit was about. This needs to be fixed legislatively – I’m not sure the courts *can* fix it judicially.
January 19th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I think it’s more that FOPA does not clearly apply in this case – it doesn’t address the issue at all. Which means that (if the courts work the way they’re supposed to) if the criminal charges had gone to trial the courts would have ruled to acquit (vagueness in the law should result in a ruling in favour of the accused) but to dismiss a civil suit because of that same vagueness.
As Ian pointed out, the arrest predates Heller so there was no clear precedent to tell the cops they were in the wrong. That lets them claim qualified immunity.
(As always, IANAL)