Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Usual Ar15 hand wringing and dramatics. First I hope he wins. Next, no matter how much money he gets, it's money that taxpayers will pay. Third, if the officers involved are following the policy of their department, NOTHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO THEM. The people that MADE the policy should get............................ The guy should be compensated for 5 days in jail, lost wages, legal fees, etc. he shouldn't be set for life because he was arrested. Do we have a volunteer for the next victim? In any case I'ld love to see this one result in a SCOTUS ruling on 2nd Amendment applicability to the states.  But it will probably not get that far and if it does just narrowly looked at on the FOPA. No in saying I hope he wins, and the people that wrote the policy should have to account for it, I am also hoping the policy gets changed, and the travelling public stops getting hassled.

That's the point, genius. Who is out there hassling people (and hassle is a kind word for flagrantly violating their civil rights)??  It's cool-aid drinking cops JUST LIKE YOU....that justify clear wrongs with a "it's my job" mandate.

Well guess what bucko, if you could carry out arresting someone on what is clearly and undeniably a violation of federal law, and the man's civil rights, then YOU SHOULD SIT IN JAIL along with the policy makers, not the innocent citizen.

Repeat this: Obeying orders is not a license to violate the BOR, or federal law. Oh, and then there's that ugly matter of sleeping at night having done something so shitty.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Usual Ar15 hand wringing and dramatics. First I hope he wins. Next, no matter how much money he gets, it's money that taxpayers will pay. Third, if the officers involved are following the policy of their department, NOTHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO THEM. The people that MADE the policy should get............................ The guy should be compensated for 5 days in jail, lost wages, legal fees, etc. he shouldn't be set for life because he was arrested. Do we have a volunteer for the next victim? In any case I'ld love to see this one result in a SCOTUS ruling on 2nd Amendment applicability to the states.  But it will probably not get that far and if it does just narrowly looked at on the FOPA. No in saying I hope he wins, and the people that wrote the policy should have to account for it, I am also hoping the policy gets changed, and the travelling public stops getting hassled. That's the point, genius. Who is out there hassling people (and hassle is a kind word for flagrantly violating their civil rights)??  It's cool-aid drinking cops JUST LIKE YOU....that justify clear wrongs with a "it's my job" mandate. Well guess what bucko, if you could carry out arresting someone on what is clearly and undeniably a violation of federal law, and the man's civil rights, then YOU SHOULD SIT IN JAIL along with the policy makers, not the innocent citizen. Repeat this: Obeying orders is not a license to violate the BOR, or federal law. Oh, and then there's that ugly matter of sleeping at night having done something so shitty.

Again, apparently they have been doing this and getting convictions. NY/NJ laws on firearms, and required permits, are in conflict with federal laws. There could be a big arguement about State's Rights etc.

If they have gotten convictions in the past, then those arrests have been found within the law.

Whethere we agree with those arrests or not, and I', sure we both don't, they have been held to be legal.

I just don't agree with deciding to punish the anchor in the chain. Make the people responsible for the the policy, responsible for it when it is found to be unjust.

I think legally speaking, this is a "murky" violation, as  there are conflicting state and federal laws in this particualr circumstance. One may see clear violations if the only look at part of the laws, others will see no violations of they only look at part of the laws. People who look at ALL thje laws in that circumstance, will see that the laws are at odds with one another.

Quoted: How many of those you figure the staff wil let pass before you're booted?

I tried to enter my opinion in the debate, in the same manner as other people that were in the debate.

Then someone acted like a poop throwing monkey, I am getting sick of the Nazi analogy's, usually  from people not smart enough to put an original thought together by themselves.

If people want to quote posts, and then add insulting comments, they should be prepared to be treated the way they have treated other people.

the KEY is suing the arresting officers.

I hope they string these bastards up from the courthouse as an example and here's to him getting his 3 million and them sum,  nazi, facisist, goosesteppin' sons-a-bitches, hope they get what they deserve

Quoted: Quoted: This is the first case that I've heard of at a NJ airport under these circumstances. You are not required to have a license to possess a handgun in NJ. NJ generally does recognize USC 926a when traveling through NJ. I don't see anywhere in the NJ Statutes where his transportation of his handgun was legal under current state law.  It really sucks.

From the NJSP:

www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_trans.html

All firearms transported into the State of New Jersey:

 * Shall be carried unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported, and in the course of travel, shall include only such deviations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
 
 * The firearm should not be directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the firearm and ammunition must be in a locked container other than the vehicle's glove compartment or console.

For additional exemptions refer to Chapter 39, namely 2C:39-g.

All firearms transported through the State of New Jersey:

The following guidelines are provided in order to assist law enforcement officers in applying New Jersey’s firearms laws to persons who are transporting firearms through the State of New Jersey.

1. New Jersey laws governing firearms permits, purchaser identification cards, registration and licenses do not apply to a person who is transporting the firearm through this State if that person is transporting the firearm in a manner permitted by federal law, 18 U.S.C.A. 926A.
 
2. This federal law permitting interstate transportation of a firearm applies only if all of the following requirements are met:

     A. The person’s possession of the firearm was lawful in the state in which the journey began;

     B. The person’s possession of the firearm will be lawful in the state in which the journey will end;

     C. The person is transporting the firearm for lawful purpose

     D. The firearm is unloaded

     E. The firearm is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle

     F. The ammunition is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle

     G. If the vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the firearm and ammunition must be in a locked container other than the vehicle’s glove compartment or console;

     .......  See link for the rest of the restrictions

Quoted: 1. New Jersey laws governing firearms permits, purchaser identification cards, registration and licenses do not apply to a person who is transporting the firearm through this State if that person is transporting the firearm in a manner permitted by federal law, 18 U.S.C.A. 926A.   2. This federal law permitting interstate transportation of a firearm applies only if all of the following requirements are met:      A. The person’s possession of the firearm was lawful in the state in which the journey began;      B. The person’s possession of the firearm will be lawful in the state in which the journey will end;      C. The person is transporting the firearm for lawful purpose      D. The firearm is unloaded      E. The firearm is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle      F. The ammunition is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle      G. If the vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the firearm and ammunition must be in a locked container other than the vehicle’s glove compartment or console;      .......  See link for the rest of the restrictions

New Jersey has always known about the federal exemption and it's right in their own law.
All the officer or his supervisor would have had to do was LOOK AT THE GOD DAMNED LAW!

Innocent people arrested , cuffed and thrown in jail is a serious matter.
We get one life and someone fucking with it just because they can is appalling to say the least.
 
Our whole legal system is set up to follow this doctrine that "better a 100 guilty men go free less one innocent man be sent to jail"

Quoted: Quoted: 1. New Jersey laws governing firearms permits, purchaser identification cards, registration and licenses do not apply to a person who is transporting the firearm through this State if that person is transporting the firearm in a manner permitted by federal law, 18 U.S.C.A. 926A.   2. This federal law permitting interstate transportation of a firearm applies only if all of the following requirements are met:      A. The person’s possession of the firearm was lawful in the state in which the journey began;      B. The person’s possession of the firearm will be lawful in the state in which the journey will end;      C. The person is transporting the firearm for lawful purpose      D. The firearm is unloaded      E. The firearm is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle      F. The ammunition is not directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle      G. If the vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, the firearm and ammunition must be in a locked container other than the vehicle’s glove compartment or console;      .......  See link for the rest of the restrictions New Jersey has always known about the federal exemption and it's right in their own law. All the officer or his supervisor would have had to do was LOOK AT THE GOD DAMNED LAW! Innocent people arrested , cuffed and thrown in jail is a serious matter. We get one life and someone fucking with it just because they can is appalling to say the least.   Our whole legal system is set up to follow this doctrine that "better a 100 guilty men go free less one innocent man be sent to jail"

Fourth grade children in a citizenship lesson can explain who's law trumps when Federal and State laws are at opposition.  Barring a finding that FOPA is unconstitutional, there is no ambiguity here.  If you have two functional brain cells to rub together you should be able to figure out if an arrest is called for or not.

I do not accept that the officers should be free from liability.  They have a brain.  They can read as can I.  If they can't be bothered to know when they are right and wrong.... so what?  They can roll the dice and hope they never get sued, but if they do.....TOUGH!  Those are the breaks when you place job security and financial gain over the laws you are supposed to be acting within.

He was legal at his start and destination.  He was in the process of travel on a paid carrier.  He was transporting his weapon in a legal mannor.  Fuck 'em I hope everyone involved gets nailed to the wall. That's wishful thinking but that's what I'd like to see.

Quoted: NY has never recognized USC 926a when traveling through NYS with an unlicensed handgun. Unless you fall under one of the exceptions you are subject to arrest and prosecution for an unlicensed handgun.

I'm not disagreeing with this statement, but this is one that has always puzzled me.  How can a state NOT recognize a federal law that specifically requires them to perform/not perform in a certain manner?  If this is doable, why don't states just say the heck with any federal law that is directed at them?  In the case of the FOPA law, how can an unlicensed handgun arrest of an traveler in NYS, who is following the FOPA law to the letter, NOT be a clear case of unlawful arrest and imprisonment?  The law is written in plain English and is not in violation of the Constitution, therefore it is in effect.  Wouldn't an official order to a police dept, Div of State Police, etc. that requires the arrest of an out-of-stater transporting a handgun while traveling through NY be considered an official conspiracy to violate federal law, just the same as a violation of federal drug laws, voting laws, tax laws, etc?  I don't get how a state or local gov't entity can blatantly violate federal law without consequences.  What am I missing?

tag

Quoted: I hope officer Erickson gets to spend some quality time of his own in federal "pound me in the ass" prison.

He hasn't been charged with anything so I guess we'll just have to keep dreaming.

Quoted: I'm not disagreeing with this statement, but this is one that has always puzzled me.  How can a state NOT recognize a federal law that specifically requires them to perform/not perform in a certain manner?  If this is doable, why don't states just say the heck with any federal law that is directed at them?  In the case of the FOPA law, how can an unlicensed handgun arrest of an traveler in NYS, who is following the FOPA law to the letter, NOT be a clear case of unlawful arrest and imprisonment?  The law is written in plain English and is not in violation of the Constitution, therefore it is in effect.  Wouldn't an official order to a police dept, Div of State Police, etc. that requires the arrest of an out-of-stater transporting a handgun while traveling through NY be considered an official conspiracy to violate federal law, just the same as a violation of federal drug laws, voting laws, tax laws, etc?  I don't get how a state or local gov't entity can blatantly violate federal law without consequences.  What am I missing?

If I had a solution to this, I'd be a millionare and oversee the hanging of several public officials in the town square....

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not disagreeing with this statement, but this is one that has always puzzled me.  How can a state NOT recognize a federal law that specifically requires them to perform/not perform in a certain manner?  If this is doable, why don't states just say the heck with any federal law that is directed at them?  In the case of the FOPA law, how can an unlicensed handgun arrest of an traveler in NYS, who is following the FOPA law to the letter, NOT be a clear case of unlawful arrest and imprisonment?  The law is written in plain English and is not in violation of the Constitution, therefore it is in effect.  Wouldn't an official order to a police dept, Div of State Police, etc. that requires the arrest of an out-of-stater transporting a handgun while traveling through NY be considered an official conspiracy to violate federal law, just the same as a violation of federal drug laws, voting laws, tax laws, etc?  I don't get how a state or local gov't entity can blatantly violate federal law without consequences.  What am I missing? If I had a solution to this, I'd be a millionare and oversee the hanging of several public officials in the town square....

There is a solution -- these laws are written such that they say something is illegal, but because the violaters are going to be government officials, they omit to specify any penalty -- so its illegal, but there is no penalty for breaking that law.

If all of these laws had a default penalty -- $250,000 fine + 10 years -- there is absolutely no question that they would be obeyed.

Work on your congress critters to specify a default penalty (a really harsh one) for where no other penalty is defined.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Usual Ar15 hand wringing and dramatics. First I hope he wins. Next, no matter how much money he gets, it's money that taxpayers will pay. Third, if the officers involved are following the policy of their department, NOTHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO THEM. The people that MADE the policy should get............................ The guy should be compensated for 5 days in jail, lost wages, legal fees, etc. he shouldn't be set for life because he was arrested. Do we have a volunteer for the next victim? In any case I'ld love to see this one result in a SCOTUS ruling on 2nd Amendment applicability to the states.  But it will probably not get that far and if it does just narrowly looked at on the FOPA. No in saying I hope he wins, and the people that wrote the policy should have to account for it, I am also hoping the policy gets changed, and the travelling public stops getting hassled. That's the point, genius. Who is out there hassling people (and hassle is a kind word for flagrantly violating their civil rights)??  It's cool-aid drinking cops JUST LIKE YOU....that justify clear wrongs with a "it's my job" mandate. Well guess what bucko, if you could carry out arresting someone on what is clearly and undeniably a violation of federal law, and the man's civil rights, then YOU SHOULD SIT IN JAIL along with the policy makers, not the innocent citizen. Repeat this: Obeying orders is not a license to violate the BOR, or federal law. Oh, and then there's that ugly matter of sleeping at night having done something so shitty. Again, apparently they have been doing this and getting convictions. NY/NJ laws on firearms, and required permits, are in conflict with federal laws. There could be a big arguement about State's Rights etc. If they have gotten convictions in the past, then those arrests have been found within the law. Whethere we agree with those arrests or not, and I', sure we both don't, they have been held to be legal. I just don't agree with deciding to punish the anchor in the chain. Make the people responsible for the the policy, responsible for it when it is found to be unjust. I think legally speaking, this is a "murky" violation, as  there are conflicting state and federal laws in this particualr circumstance. One may see clear violations if the only look at part of the laws, others will see no violations of they only look at part of the laws. People who look at ALL thje laws in that circumstance, will see that the laws are at odds with one another.

Bullshiite!

There's nothing 'murky' about this situation.

Think, 'the supremacy clause' of the US Constitution.

Whenever there is a conflict, guess which one prevails, pardner?

So, there have been 'convictions' have there?

What's the typical 'sentence'? A monetary fine?

Sounds like some folks are maybe deciding it's better to cut their losses, or folks getting legal advice from lawyers who don't understand the conflict with federal laws.

But to continue operating in this manner, these NJ/NY JBTs are continuing to thumb their noses at the US Constitution....at the expense of the traveling public.

They need a nice little lawsuit to put them in their place.

As always.

Eric The(TheOnlyTimeIFavorSuchLawsuits)Hun