Firearm Owners Protection Act Is More Than 33 Years Old And . . .

gun safe handgun storage

Courtesy Amazon

FOPA is still not getting us what we traded away new machine guns for.

Delivery driver’s gun confiscated; group says his rights were violated

Mr. Felano said a Kentucky delivery driver was making his way to Fort Drum to deliver telephone poles. At the Gas Alley Gate entrance, the driver told military police of a 9 mm pistol he had in his truck, secured in a lock box. An MP confiscated the weapon, which Mr. Felano argues is a violation of the driver’s Second Amendment rights. …

Mr. Barrett would later be charged with fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He was traveling from Kentucky, a state that doesn’t require a pistol permit. New York state requires a permit, however, and the driver didn’t have the required documentation, which resulted in the charge, said Jack Keller, a state police spokesman.

The “safe passage” provision of FOPA was supposed to fix this. But the skilled negotiate-awayers of the NRA missed a little something:

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.

Inserting that gutted the very — alleged — intention of 18 U.S. Code § 926A. Leaving out the to/from part would have made it real. You may be safe-passing through New York, so as it isn’t your destination; but they have a history of arresting thru-travelers as well. They lost some cases on that, so that situation may have improved.

Barrett is in a Catch-22. FOPA would only protect him if he was licensed in NY, but NY doesn’t issue licenses to nonresidents (unless their primary workplace is in the state). His only hope is that he was working a multi-state route, and can say this delivery was just one stop on his journey.

Thanks, NRA.

comments

  1. avatar napresto says:

    NY barely tolerates its own gun owners. If you are from elsewhere, why would you assume you’ll be treated better? I don’t agree that this driver’s actions SHOULD be illegal, but as a gun owner, he really ought to do some research about WHAT is legal.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      That being said there so many laws and not just gun laws in every jurisdiction that’s about impossible.

      I would suggest you probably are breaking laws were you live and don’t even know it. There are legal experts who say you commit three felonies a day.

      Cities like ordinances that go beyond state laws or are not even covered in state law.

      Ask the cops. Where I live they have three books. One for state law, one for county and for for the city. I had a local cop tell me I can find something in one of the three books if I need to.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        All true, but would you consider it safe or wise to assume that you can bring your carry gun to NY, CA, NJ, MD, et al.?

        That said, I do hope this driver finds a way out of his predicament, because he’s done absolutely nothing wrong. It’s just that he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by paying closer attention to the corrupt, anti-freedom progressive dystopia that he was driving into.

        1. avatar Reason says:

          Seems like he should just have kept his mouth shut , made his drop off and gotten out of there. as long as the truck was not searched he would have been fine.
          Sounds like he was making a normal delivery to the base.
          If you are breaking a law you are in no obligation to incriminate yourself. (telling the guard that a firearm is in the truck)

      2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        You don’t need to know every law in every state. All you need to know is what states are Stalinist police states. New York is one of them. Don’t go there with a firearm and divulge to the first armed agent of the government you see that you’re in possession of a firearm.

        This idiot had one job (ok, two jobs). Don’t take a gun into New York. Don’t announce that you have, if you have.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Around 20 years ago, a well-respected judge in Austin told an interviewer that he did not believe that he could drive his car from the northern city limits of Austin to the southern city limits, on the Interstate highway, without breaking some law, because there were laws against literally everything. It hasn’t gotten better.

    2. avatar arc says:

      COTUS says its legal, **** the brown nose that took the man’s weapon, were I sent to PMO for my last few months to pull gate duty, I would tell the driver to keep it to himself and move along. Time to keep secret compartments inside the vehicle and no not behind the radio.

      Bad guys don’t declare their trash to the gate guard.

    3. avatar Merle 0 says:

      I think what the lesson of FOPA really is, is that if we compromise we’ll still get F’d in the end. It’s the example I like to point to when people say, “oh well maybe if we just give up on this one thing they really want, and save the rest, they’ll stop”. In 86 new machine guns were traded for this idea that the rest of firearms will remain protected, and then it would be over. But as soon as that passed, is when they began working on the “Assault Weapons“ Ban. And when that passed In 94, they began targeting “high powered rifles” and pistols. Luckily we’ve stopped them since and have regained lost ground. The day we give into “expanded backround checks” will be the same day they begin the campaign for registration. But they won’t ever stop and no amount of compromise will ever satisfy them. To the left “compromise” means you are the one who is compromised.

      1. avatar tmm says:

        Well said.

      2. avatar Edward Dunnigan says:

        Quote, “In 86 new machine guns were traded for this idea that the rest of firearms will remain protected, and then it would be over.”

        And then, when a few years ago, there was even a HINT that the Hughes Amendment might be repealed, the first ones to step up and fight AGAINST the repeal were the NFA Collectors. Between them and the NRA, it’s a wonder we’re not China.

    4. avatar Paul says:

      The Department of Transportation prohibits firearms in any commercial vehicle. Those persons engaged in commercial transportation who are authorized and/or required to be armed (think Brink’s armored vehicles or military contractors) aren’t required to have their weapons in a lockbox. If the guy has a CDL, he knows all of that, or can reasonably be expected to know it.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Hmm, I have a feeling that there are an awful lot of truckers that have pistols in their cabs…

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          found that out one night when I broke down and was forced to knock on a nearby trucker’s cab door…

      2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        Link to the law?

        Because I think you are wrong.

      3. Yep, gonna need a cite for that. I can’t find anything in USC or FMCSA.

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I am pretty sure you are wrong. Can you explain how firearms arrive in retail outlets so that they can be sold? By magic?

      5. avatar Phil says:

        Wow I have a CDL and know of no such law. This would be a direct violation of the BOR. Would really like to see how they would defend this in court. Considering my truck is a privately owned convenience it would be moot anyway. If it was Governement owned that would be a different story.

  2. avatar Wally1 says:

    Another reason never to visit New York.

    1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      Yep. I have not been to NY in years. And I am never going into that state again.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I went once, a decade ago, on a short business trip that included a nice hotel room overlooking Times Square itself. Really nice. On the three-hour stint of “personal” time I had between engagements, I explored the upper portions of Central Park, which was surprisingly well maintained and beautiful. Again, very nice. Had no issues with the locals or any police officers.

        Having said that, I prefer to remember NYC that way, and seeing that I have no relatives in that corner of the country and will never visit again, I’ll count myself fortunate and leave well enough alone.

        True story — when I remarked to the hotel supervisor that I was pleasantly surprised at how polite the locals were, he smiled and thanked me (I’m from SoCal). Then he leaned in, lowered his voice a little, and said, “but if you’re thinking of our famous reputation for being rude, that’s the Burroughs…don’t ever go there, especially at night.”

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Felt the same way when I went (stuck to Manhattan), and I’m from a place known for it’s hospitality. I didn’t attempt to bring a firearm.

          A friend went to Atlantic City and said he couldn’t wait to leave. Everyone was rude.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Agreed as I don’t visit $hit holes.

    3. avatar napresto says:

      Upstate’s pretty nice. It’s the state government that sucks, not the state itself.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        It’s NYC that sucks and outvotes the rest of the state. It would be a nice place if NYC was excised.

      2. avatar Rad Man says:

        I say the same about Massachusetts.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    There is Fantasy Land, and Reality World. Fantasy Land is where Reality World vacations. Reality World is where Fantasy gets a bloody nose.

    Setting aside the fact that no person has a natural, human and civil right to enter a military installation (and firearms are not allowed, unless issued), what we have here is a failure to receive communication. The gun owner did not know the laws regarding firearm possession and transport all along his route of travel. Fantasy says, “Not Fair”; Reality says, “It’s your responsibility to be responsible for yourself”.

    FOPA was an attempt to reinforce the Second Amendment…in light of the realities of the day (including today). FOPA shows us why a Constitutional Convention is not the solution to infringements on the Second Amendment. Fantasy believes that passing laws the say “We really mean it this time” will set things back to the original conditions. Reality says that is utter nonsense.

    Reality bites gun owners at every turn. We either learn to deal with reality, or we suffer. There should be no wringing of hands over a gun owner who didn’t act responsibly. Perhaps FOPA didn’t give us what we wanted, but there is no excuse for acting as if it did.

    1. avatar Alex Waits says:

      Not meant to offend, but read the article. The guy surrendered the info about the pistol at the gate, he didn’t expect to carry on base and his previous encounters with other installation guards advised him to store off base, probably at a gun shop which he probably intended to do. The MPs called local cops who arrested him and subsequently charged.

      Just more bullshit from New York.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Not meant to offend, but read the article. The guy surrendered the info about the pistol at the gate, he didn’t expect to carry on base…”

        What I read indicated only that the guy announced the presence of the firearm. Reality is the gun owner did not follow applicable law, but relied on previous experience. Not actually a recognition of gun owner responsibility.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I agree. Don’t ask, don’t tell, unless there is a high probability that the concealed self-protection tool will be discovered. Like the Gomers who will volunteer that they are packing to a cop who has pulled them over for a traffic violation. WTH? Are they trying to impress someone, unless that particular state law requires one to do so? Just use your rights, don’t brag about them or show them around. If you want to draw attention to yourself you are certain to find some, and it likely won’t be what you want.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        Couldn’t the MPs tell him to go ditch the gun then come back? Are they obligated to call the police?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Couldn’t the MPs tell him to go ditch the gun then come back? Are they obligated to call the police?”

          First, “Ordnung ist ordnung”. There are published (internally) procedures for attempted illegal entry. The actual response is generally not flexible at the “guard on the gate” level. Not saying no one is ever advised to “ditch the gun”, but it would be very risky to depend on that. Obligated to call local police? Again, there are published procedures.

          Historically there have been 10 – 12 General Orders for Sentries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Orders_for_Sentries), with an unofficial “last” general order: I will walk my post from flank to flank, and take no crap from any rank.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          1. Probably not MP’s, but regular grunts assigned to gate duty. I know the claims to have talked to MP’s, but he may not understand the difference.

          2. He has been advised to store off-base in the past, but he brought the weapon onto base. Bad move, he didn’t follow the advice that he cites here.

          3. I commented above that the DOT prohibits weapons in commercial vehicles. There are a few exceptions, but this guy doesn’t seem to fit into those exceptions.

          3. b. If he did fit into one of the exemptions for carrying a weapon on a commercial vehicle, he would also be authorized to “carry”, as we understand the term. No need to keep the weapon securely locked while traveling.

          4. It seems that he is lucky not to be charged with a federal crime as well as state, since he attempted to take the unauthorized personal weapon inside of a federal facility.

          NOTE: I’m not defending New York and it’s asinine laws, I’m just trying to point out that the hero of the story isn’t really a hero.

        3. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

          Funny, in yesterdays story “Virginia’s Democrats: Send In The National Guard to Enforce New Gun Laws”, the 4 boxes were mentioned a number of times; yet, so far, in this story not once.

          Is this hypocritical? Should we not be mentioning the ‘jury box’?

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        I don’t know any NY gun store in 2019 that would do such a thing for someone walking in off the street with no license to possess… and then give it back afterwards?!? And if that WAS his plan, why didn’t he do it before he tried to enter a secured military facility?

        That story is bullshit.

  4. avatar Mark N. says:

    An interesting question: Can a State bar nonresidents from possessing any firearms while in the state without violation the right to bear portion of the Second Amendment? The fact is that neither NY nor NJ issue possession permits to out of state residents, a de facto ban. And FOPA doesn’t protect hunters who enter from other states,or other travelers visiting the state, since NY/NJ is the end destination where a right to possess cannot exist.

    The alternative question, and perhaps the more central one is: Can a State condition the right to possession of firearms on the issuance of a state license or permit without violating the Second Amendment?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “The alternative question, and perhaps the more central one is: Can a State condition the right to possession of firearms on the issuance of a state license or permit without violating the Second Amendment?”

      My hope is, at the very least, SCOTUS will offer some clarity on transport, especially interstate transport, with the ‘NY Pistol’ decision. Just that would take the pressure off of lawful people transporting firearms from one place to another…

    2. avatar napresto says:

      In NY, long guns would be treated very differently from pistols. Long guns have surprisingly few restrictions here, other than the asinine limits on scary black rifles, accessories, and magazine capacity. As long as the rifle is NY legal, however, I don’t think your state of residence matters at all, and you definitely don’t need a permit to possess or buy.

      Pistols are a whole different thing: you cannot be in possession of a pistol in NY unless it is identified by serial number on your permit. You are not allowed to touch pistols not on your permit. For example, I can’t use or even brush against a friend’s pistols here in NY without breaking the law, even though I have a NY CCW permit of my own and might even have the identical make and model on my own permit.

      This is exceptionally stupid, largely enforced, and rarely obeyed, but there it is.

      NYC is an entirely different set of (even less constitutional) laws.

  5. avatar Mark N. says:

    I don’t understand why the MPs confiscated his firearm rather than holding it for him until he left the base. They have no business enforcing NY State law.

    1. avatar Robert says:

      Yes, this. MPs are federal enforcing federal/DOD regs. They have no authority to enforce state law or care about it.

      In addition, what if the driver never mentioned the lock box? Do MPs search inside and require opening of lock boxes? (I don’t know how these things work)

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Yes, this. MPs are federal enforcing federal/DOD regs. They have no authority to enforce state law or care about it.
        In addition, what if the driver never mentioned the lock box? Do MPs search inside and require opening of lock boxes? (I don’t know how these things work)”

        Last first: Yes, sometimes a civilian vehicle is “stopped and frisked”: open every door and lid, search for explosives and weapons, dog sniff for drugs and/or weapons and explosives. This is about installation security, not local or state laws.

        The transition between the episode at the facility entry, and involvement of state authorities is completely unclear in the article. However, there are agreements and practices at hand when a civilian takes a federally illegal action on/at a military installation.

        1. avatar Phil says:

          Typically civilians are barred from possession of weapons on military installations unless there for specific reasons such as firearm training. Technically the law states in any facility and they take the liberty of interpreting facility as any part of the military compound. This is why cases where people are caught with guns get charged with other things as Sam I Am stated. One of the few things I agree with that he said.

          It gets all kind of stupid one of the guys in my Unit was also a Border Patrol Agent who ironically is licensed to carry on Federal Property. He did not have time to return his duty weapon before drill one weekend. At the gate they asked to search and he said yes. Found his gun and uniform and arrested him. They locked him up and the 1st Shirt got him out that night. They never charged him but made him sign a Memorandum for Record stating he would not do it again.

          Bottom line unless your Commander authorizes it, like the Guard Base I am currently on either shut up about your gun and keep it on your person or don’t bring one at all.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I don’t understand why the MPs confiscated his firearm…”

      It is because on a military base, no one carries firearms except under direct orders (such as Military Police). A person entering a military yard carrying a firearm commits a federal crime, and confiscation is the appropriate measure when apprehending a suspect.

      Strictly speaking, there is no, “Sorry, mate, you cannot come on here with that. Here, let us store it for you while you visit.” In reality, it is not impossible for MPs to tell you that firearms are not permitted, and allow you to abandon your entry without further delay. But it would be foolish to depend on the latter.

      As for enforcing state law, there are some complications with jurisdiction over civilians detained by military authorities.

      1. avatar Robert says:

        If you haven’t yet entered, why would you be under their jurisdiction? Why would it be unlikely to be told you can simply leave? Why would his property be confiscated if he has not yet entered or broken dod rules/federal law?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you haven’t yet entered, why would you be under their jurisdiction?”

          Little known piece of information: there is always a visible marker that established the actual boundary of a military facility at points of entry/egress. That marker is set fifty, or so, feet prior to actually meeting security at the entry point, meaning you are already “entered” into/onto the facility before your identification is checked. The Air Force uses a blue line on the pavement, a blue marker stake, a blue marker pole, or some such. These markers are not labeled, nor are they particularly prominent to view (intentionally).

        2. avatar Paul says:

          Sam I Am has already answered with the fact that the gate sits INSIDE OF federal property, not at the boundary. Technically, factually, you are on the military post when you are talking to the gate guard.

          Even if you weren’t actually on federal property at the gate, your presence at the gate, in possession of “contraband” indicates your intention to transport that contraband onto the base. So, you’re going to lose that argument in court.

      2. avatar Xaun Loc says:

        Actually entering a military (or other federal) facility with a weapon is not a federal crime — which is why people caught doing it are charged with some other offense.

        Such facilities usually have a sign citing 18 USC 930 as banning possession of weapons but if you read the actual law, it begins “(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”

        Sounds pretty airtight, but let’s take a look at that subsection (d) at the bottom of the law… “(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
        (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
        (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
        (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

        That doesn’t sound like much help, until you get to the last four words. No federal prosecutor in his right mind wants to have those last four words interpreted by a federal court unless he is sure that the judge is an anti-gun liberal activist.

        Note that in the case Carl wrote about, the delivery driver (who should have known better) was not charged for a violation of 18USC930 for possession of a firearm on post, he was charged under New York state law for possession of a firearm without a NY permit.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Actually entering a military (or other federal) facility with a weapon is not a federal crime…”

          You may be correct for civilians. On active duty, violating a standing order of the commander (no firearms on base) could get you a court marshal. Cases presented to a court marshal are federal, and last I knew (years ago), all cases before a court marshal are felony cases.

          Once inside the facility boundary, installation rules and regulations do apply, civilian or active duty. If the regulations require security force to confiscate contraband, civilians are affected.

          The original question was about military jurisdiction over civilians. Once inside the facility boundary, military authority/jurisdiction regarding movement and materials applies to military and civilian, alike.

        2. avatar SoCalJack says:

          Yes, what Sam I Am said. I recall a memo 3 years ago stating it was up to the base CO to decide the details of bring firearms on base. Most have an armory where active duty can store their guns, very few actually allow hunters (Pt Mugu Naval Airstaion used to allow bird hunting). Each base is a little different. Following the link, the guy claimed he visited bases across the country with no prob, just a warning from the gate guard to stow it off base. Like Sam I Am noted, this gate’s location could have been recessed or deep in to Federal property when the guy admitted he had a locked up gun. In hindsight calling base security ahead of time and getting a printed copy of the base’s security memo on firearms would help.

        3. avatar TFred says:

          “other lawful purposes”

          But nobody has yet been able to leverage those same four words against the USPS ban, which extends even to their parking lots.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          As same and SoCalJack point out here a major issue is that sometimes the physical gate is recessed inside “the base” in legal terms.

          Many figure it’s the fence or wall that’s the limit but often the government owns a bit farther out than that.

          Buckley AFB had this problem with pizza delivery drivers getting busted with weapons (mostly knives) AT the gate not realizing they’d already technically entered the base as they pulled up to the gate. The delivery drivers were made to call whoever had placed the order and have someone come to the gate and pick up the food to avoid the drivers having to get searched and possibly found in possession of a knife or gun.

          This policy made the people ordering food a bit annoyed but was much better for drivers, MP’s and the base overall.

        5. avatar Xaun Loc says:

          Sorry TFred, but those magic four words don’t apply to USPS property because the USPS uses an entirely different law.

          But you are wrong that NO ONE has beaten the USPS on their ban. I’ll admit that I don’t have the details to cite the specific case handy, but one person did sue the USPS over their ban and did win. But the ruling only applied to one specific post office parking lot. As I recall it was in a relatively rural area where residents had to come to the post office and there wasn’t any reasonable place to park other than the post office parking lot. The court ruled that the plaintiff could leave his gun in his car in the parking lot while going to the post office.

  6. avatar Nanashi says:

    Reminder that LaPierre said at the time the NRA supported the right to own full autos. In 2017 LaPierre said he supported the existing law on automatic firearms.

    Lock him up for false advertising.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Yes Wayne La PewPew is a very highly polished turd but even though remains a smelly turd.

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Mr. Felano said a Kentucky delivery driver was making his way to Fort Drum to deliver telephone poles. At the Gas Alley Gate entrance, the driver told military police of a 9 mm pistol he had in his truck, secured in a lock box. An MP confiscated the weapon, which Mr. Felano argues is a violation of the driver’s Second Amendment rights. …

    Mr. Barrett would later be charged with fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He was traveling from Kentucky, a state that doesn’t require a pistol permit. New York state requires a permit, however, and the driver didn’t have the required documentation, which resulted in the charge, said Jack Keller, a state police spokesman.

    The “safe passage” provision of FOPA was supposed to fix this. But the skilled negotiate-awayers of the NRA missed a little something:”

    Practitioners of their second amendment rights have been Effed with infringements since 1934 and unfortunately I see only one way to return our natural rights.

  8. avatar Sam Hill says:

    That is what a real stand up honest trying to be law abiding citizen gets. If there is a next time keeping the mouth shut and the weapon well hid works. I am not condoning breaking the laws, but when they are unconstitutional to begin with, breaking them is our duty. Doing our duty does not require advertising the fact under most circumstances. Hope he has a good lawyer and big legal fund.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      You have to be careful. If I need to disarm, I’m used to just leaving it in my vehicle. I had a meeting on some TVA property, and I knew there would be a guard shack check in. I didn’t think about no firearms on the property at all. They had a no firearms sign up before the guard shack. I didn’t have time to go anywhere, so I just hid it in the weeds by the road. Pain in the ass, but I didn’t want to chance a felony.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      calls to mind a ridiculous restriction I encountered while working federal security a few years back..one of our duties was to report to the post office when it first opened but not to carry our weapon while inside even though we were authorized to do so by the GSA…most of the guys just removed it from the holster and placed it in an inside pocket…out of sight out of mind …apparently…and no such restriction applied when checking the outer perimeter or the parking area…go figure…..

  9. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    Come on Carl. As you say FOPA was never a good trade in the first place, but it IS over three decades old and there are plenty of real violations of FOPA by states (especially NY and NJ) without having to focus on a case where the individual should have known better. As even you point out, he was NOT covered by the plain language of FOPA unless he was legal to carry at his destination (and no, a round trip doesn’t count as a destination – that’s been settled in court already).

    Pick which issue you want to write about. Either write about how we should have gotten a better deal when someone Negotiated our Rights Away or write about states ignoring FOPA, but don’t try to mix the two in one article.

    1. “Either write about how we should have gotten a better deal when someone Negotiated our Rights Away or write about states ignoring FOPA, but don’t try to mix the two in one article.”

      You didn’t read my column, or you read it poorly.

      Aside from mentioning that NY has, in the past, ignored FOPA, this column was about the bad deal FOPA was. In this, NY didn’t ignore FOPA. “Safe passage” didn’t apply because of that clause I mentioned.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        ““Safe passage” didn’t apply”

        Exactly. It didn’t apply and FOPA was never intended to apply in this case, no matter how imaginatively a person might try to read it, because the driver was by all reasonable definition going *to* the state where he was prohibited instead of through it.
        By all means criticize the NRA, but pick something relevant – this article honestly is just misguided whining.

  10. avatar A dying nation says:

    certainly not the best time for gun owners to assume anything, do your research beforehand. Also, I am not saying the following based on this article: we are becoming a socialist state where the supreme law of the land doesn’t really matter anymore, “the law is the law” and that excludes the constitution in most cases. I would also not count on most cops and armed forces to refuse to enforce anti 2A laws and actions, because “I still need that paycheck and pension,” and “orders are orders.”

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      remember entering the tank plant at North Lima and sweating the fact I had a NA mini in my pocket…the gate guard…including the soldier with the M-16 didn’t ask…and I didn’t tell….still remember kidding him about whether he had a loaded magazine in his weapon…and getting a withering glance in response…

  11. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The FOPA was kind of a crappy thing. The only real function it had was to keep the ATF from harassing dealers. Probably doesn’t really do that truthfully.

  12. avatar TFred says:

    I haven’t yet been able to figure out why FOPA didn’t override the NYSRPA case that went to SCOTUS, and will likely end up costing the gun-haters the biggest loss in their entire history of trying to delete the Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      FOPA is about transporting from legal place A to legal place C through prohibited place B. In the case of NYC they made place C prohibited as well, so ‘B’ was not the issue and FOPA did not apply.

      1. avatar TFred says:

        Ah, of course… silly me for assuming they accepted the fact that Heller said you can own a gun in your own home… even if it was a second home.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          Right you are, and that’s why they retreated on the law as soon as it looked like it was going to get ruled on. They knew they would lose. But it rests on the Heller decision and not FOPA.

  13. avatar Otto Lode says:

    I have had to travel by road to New York state (never the crap city only upsate which has lots of great people) and I stop 30 miles from the NY border and stash my “offensive” items so I have to weigh getting caught in NY state as a non resident with 2A items ( a guaranteed trip to jail and impound plus full search and seizure etc) against somebody stumbling across my hidden stash all unloaded, secured in lock boxes and ammo separated etc I’d probably get blamed for some sort of dumping or worse but a decision has to be made. Do I want to travel from the far west coast cross country hauling valuable cargo sleeping in remote rest areas or truck stops unarmed ? Thats not for me. Hell the crazies are attacking armed State Troopers (yes they are that crazy !!! ) so us citizens are sitting ducks

    1. avatar TFred says:

      It would seem that some providentially located entrepreneur could leverage a business model that provided some sort of a locker storage system located within a 24/7 business that is already operating (like a truck stop, for example) along major highways just outside the state line!

      1. avatar Otto Lode says:

        I thought that exact thing but I bet regulation would screw it up and require the storage to be an FFL and then NICS checks and possible delays upon wanting to re-procure your items as a non resident technically you could not even retrieve a handgun

        Overall a brilliant , safe and secure for all idea destroyed by senseless regulations

        1. avatar TFred says:

          I’m not sure about that. It’s just a storage locker. Nobody would be forced to even know what they were storing (although for security and safety, they might want to take a look – you don’t want some MDA nut leaving you a pipe bomb). If the customer took the key, you could pretty easily argue that no transfer of possession takes place. You could even have a two-key system like safe deposit boxes, to ensure that the person coming back was the same person who left it there, before they took their stuff back.

          Also consider where these businesses would be. On the OUTSIDE of New York, so that would be Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. As they say, your mileage may vary, depending on which of those border states you were in.

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    New York or not he wouldn’t have been protected under FOPA because he was making a delivery to Ft. Drum where he couldn’t have the gun anyway without explicit permission.

    Yeah, it’s BS that NY decided to play hardball and it sucks that the MP’s called the cops but, hey man, you tried to enter a military base with a gun it’s going to be pretty rare that such a thing goes well for you.

  15. avatar ScotttMc says:

    Once during the administration of Canadian Prime Minister John Harper my wife and I were entering Canada at Peace Bridge near Buffalo, NY. On the Canadian side my wife and I were offered the opportunity store our guns in a safe and pick them up on our return to the US by a friendly Canadian customs and immigration agent. We both replied we were not armed since to get to Peace Bridge we have to drive a little over 100 miles through New York where the guns were not legal and left the guns in the safe at home on the other side of Pennsylvania and were waved through. Agents have more or less admitted they know you have a concealed weapons permit when you drive up to the border check point for about a decade so feigning ignorance isn’t a good idea. Accepting this storage offer among other issues would leave you vulnerable to the possibility of a less friendly agent returning firearms and calling the New York State Police as soon as you enter the US.

    This experience, although I’m sure we handled it properly, has always puzzled me. I’m writing it up in hopes of giving a heads up, finding out if anyone else has had a similar experience, and/or has some idea what it was all about as I am still a little puzzled.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Sounds like a trap to me. I know that many officers in ‘may issue’ states take a practice of asking PA residents on a traffic stop “License, registration, and where is your firearm” figuring that there’s a good enough chance that they have one to make asking worth it. And then plenty would charge them for it.

      I would recommend avoiding places like that. If it’s necessary, I would avoid carrying a gun. If you decide to do so, I would avoid breaking any laws, including traffic violations (the best advice to anyone breaking a law is to only break one at a time!). If you’ve gotten yourself all the way down that line of bad ideas the very worst thing you can do is probably to say “yeah, I’ve got a gun, that’s cool right?”

      Well, okay, the worst thing would be to not say you have a gun but have it visible so it is discovered.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Recently saw a YouTube video on Canadian Customs, I can’t recall the URL.

        Anyways, yes, when Canada runs your name on entry, they know if you have a CWP. The gist of the whole thing was, if you declare it on entry, they were non-anal about it. You still can’t bring it in, but you won’t be arrested. Not declaring and them finding guns or ammo, different critter. You can bring nearly any rifle or shottie you want in, excepting what they call “Assault” and magazines below 10 rounds capacity…

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          There’s no federal, much less international registry of CWPs. I always laugh when people talk about that Maryland traffic stop near the Bay Bridge as if MD officers have access to some database telling them whether someone has a carry permit in any state (the real story is that the wife was foolish enough to say she thought he might have a gun in there). I know that there is no such database available to LE. So I very much doubt that Canada has any such thing either, unless it is made up of information they gather as people cross the border and present themselves. South Carolina is not sending over lists of its conceal carry holders to the mounties.

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Some states link their license/permit to carry and DL and/or vehicle registration so that when a DL/registration is run the license/permit info comes up as well. Some do not. Some systems report the information to the requesting officer and some do not and that can vary within a state. Some jurisdictions query multiple databases automatically and some do not.

          Within PA, unless you have specific knowledge of the systems and procedures of the specific locale in which you are being pulled over, you will never know if the officer has your license/permit information or not unless he specifically mentions it.

  16. avatar Tiks895 says:

    Another reason to always answer NO when asked if you have a firearm in your vehicle!

    1. avatar Timber says:

      What if the MP search the vehicle and ask what’s in the safe? “oh that safe, just some gold and my passport.” Don’t they have the right to detain you for questioning and call the cops once you’re on the base and they suspect something?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Don’t they have the right to detain you for questioning and call the cops once you’re on the base and they suspect something?”

        Generally they don’t have to because you’re in their sandbox.

        If you’re a civilian entering a military base then you have to submit to any search of anything in/on the vehicle including locked containers. If you refuse that search at the gate then you have to leave. They have the legal ability to search all of the vehicle specifically including any “containers” they want to.

        If they already know about the container and you refuse to allow it to be searched then expect to be escorted off the base/turned around and told to leave.

        If they already know about it and already suspect that there’s something in the container that’s contraband then they don’t need to call the local or state cops and it’s probably getting searched whether you like it or not. They can open it if you won’t and if they’re to the point of suspecting contraband they likely will.

        See US v. Crowley (1922) on non-consensual searches of civilians on base and US v. Burrow (1975) civilians on base are under UCMJ rules and the base commander can order a probable cause search of a vehicle if it’s on the base.

  17. avatar Hydguy says:

    His final destination is his home after delivering the load of telephone poles.
    If he was moving to Ft. Drum, then he wouldn’t have been ‘traveling’.

  18. avatar TRob ARob says:

    I have traveled across the country carrying firearms. I lived in NJ and taught firearms safety in NJ. We ALWAYS said to NEVER allow a search, keep your firearm in a locked sealed container in the trunk, or far back, of your vehicle, and NEVER volunteer or admit that you are in possession of a firearm.
    When traveling in and around NY,NJ, CT, MA, use extreme care and NEVER talk to the police.

    In this guys case, his gun was locked away. There was NO need to tell the base guards that he was carrying a firearm. NEVER tell on yourself. Don’t lie if you can help it. Just don’t volunteer ANY info about firearms.

  19. avatar Country Boy says:

    Who the hell wants to visit NY, CA, NJ, MD, or other northern anti gun states. Not me.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      try getting from PA to New Hampshire without crossing NY state….

  20. avatar Tom Thumb says:

    My brother works as a civilian doctor on a military post out west. He will not even carry a sheathe knife in his car that he drives on post much less a firearm. He said he has been the subject of too many random searches while entering to risk his job.

  21. avatar Sisted Twister says:

    Just keep voting! That will fix it!

    1. avatar Dave G. says:

      @Sisted Twister:

      Yeah. Sure.

  22. avatar Rusty - always carry - Chains says:

    I avoid slave states and because of NYC, the state qualifies. If I had to go through there it would be a nonstop journey until I reached a free state; a difficult task in the Northeast!

  23. Another reason to always answer NO when asked if you have a firearm in your vehicle!
    مشکلات دوران نوجوانی

  24. avatar Coolbreeze says:

    Just a reminder, in ohio you must inform the officer of your possessing a gun when you are in a traffic stop to be legal. I suggest you do so immediately and ask if he understood you.

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    “He was traveling from Kentucky, a state that doesn’t require a pistol permit. New York state requires a permit,”

    This is why as a Kentucky resident I will always pay ($60 renew fee) for a Ky permit. Because I travel out of the state all the time. Permit lasts 5 years.

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      It doesn’t really matter in this case. NY doesn’t recognize any other states licenses/permits. Neither do NJ or MD. He would still have been charged.

      It would have made a difference had this happened in PA, which recognizes all other states licenses/permits for carry in a vehicle, and has reciprocity for CC outside a vehicle with many other states.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        last PA AG messed that up a bit….just before she was indicted….

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Only for PA residents.

          There was a court ruling that PA residents aren’t “any person”, which is the term used in relation to other states licenses/permits in the law. IIRC, that was in the McKown case, which gun owners in PA failed to support because many of them found McKown distasteful. Like it or not that was the case we had and McKown was compelled to pursue his case for his own personal defense despite the desire many PA gun owners and pro gun activists for him to fall on his sword and take one for the team. If PA gun owners had rolled out phone calls to radio stations, letters to the editor, public demonstrations, amicus curiae briefs, and some donations then the judge would likely have ruled differently.

          It was quite a while later that Kathleen Kane rewrote all the reciprocity agreements to specifically exclude PA residents from carrying on an out of state license/permit in PA. A failing our mostly republican legislature has thus far declined to fix.

          So if you are a resident of another state and have a license/permit from another state you can still carry in a vehicle and OC on foot in PA, and if that state has reciprocity you can conceal.

          If you are a PA resident then you must have a PA License To Carry Firearms to carry concealed, to carry in a vehicle, to carry in a city of the first class (Philadelphia), to carry during a declared state of emergency (which is all the time now) or to be loaned a firearm.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email