User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/25/2013 10:04:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the third circuit has about 60 percent of their cases reaching SCOTUS reversed. Does anybody know if they heard orals on this case, or if it was decided on briefs? Seems 86 percent of their cases are decided on briefs alone, versus 73 percent on average in other circuits. Any chance the case may be heard en banc rather thn the three judge panel, or do they need to go to SCOTUS next? Oral arguments were on May 31, 2013. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2013 10:08:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oral arguments were on May 31, 2013. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well the third circuit has about 60 percent of their cases reaching SCOTUS reversed. Does anybody know if they heard orals on this case, or if it was decided on briefs? Seems 86 percent of their cases are decided on briefs alone, versus 73 percent on average in other circuits. Any chance the case may be heard en banc rather thn the three judge panel, or do they need to go to SCOTUS next? Oral arguments were on May 31, 2013. Any effort to go en banc? Glad to hear there were at least orals. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 12:32:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/9059 They aren't violating fopa. As soon as you leave your car to walk into the airport you have no fopa protection. I have been telling people this for years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
– The Third Circuit said Friday that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey may continue to confiscate the firearms of non-New Jersey residents traveling through Newark Liberty International Airport, ruling a federal law protecting gun owners does not apply when walking through an air terminal. - See more at: http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/09/25/nj-court-says-nj-can-continue-violating-the-fopa/#sthash.KhQiaPTI.dpuf http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/9059 They aren't violating fopa. As soon as you leave your car to walk into the airport you have no fopa protection. I have been telling people this for years. Fuck FOPA, they're violating the 2nd amendment altogether. and the fourth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 12:44:42 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gee. I'm sure glad that Reagan signed that FOPA act that did so much good for us. I guess I'll add having my firearms confiscated in New Jersey to that long list of things, along with making sure I can't buy a new, legal machine gun. Thanks Ronnie. How is it Reagan's fault that NJ is ignoring Federal law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 12:46:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This case was about people driving to a NJ airport to fly out with a gun, not people on a lay over. Revell was a guy who was there overnight and took his gun to his hotel then was arrested when he returned to fly out. Years before revell I was flying to TN and was rerouted through Chicago, then I was told I would be there overnight. I had a glock, ar15 and beretta storm. I could not take possession of the guns and was concerned to even discuss it with the airline for fear my guns would pop out of baggage next to me and result in an arrest. I was planning on renting a car and leaving the airport and either calling the airline or hiring an Ffl to retrieve the guns Fortunately I managed to get on another flight that same day so the airline kept my luggage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course NJ judges say NJ can give the FOPA the middle finger. Elected by NJ for NJ. What I'm curious to, is what legal loophole they are using to circumvent the FOPA. By havign a lay over you are not traveling through, you are stopping some where that the gun(s) is/are illegal, so FOPA does not apply is NYC's justification. Years before revell I was flying to TN and was rerouted through Chicago, then I was told I would be there overnight. I had a glock, ar15 and beretta storm. I could not take possession of the guns and was concerned to even discuss it with the airline for fear my guns would pop out of baggage next to me and result in an arrest. I was planning on renting a car and leaving the airport and either calling the airline or hiring an Ffl to retrieve the guns Fortunately I managed to get on another flight that same day so the airline kept my luggage. I thought Revell was in NJ on an unscheduled layover due to a Problem the airline had. his trip did not include a scheduled stop in NJ. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 12:56:34 AM EDT
[#6]
yep. his trip did NOT include a scheduled layover in EWR.
But the flight from Minneapolis to Newark was late, so Revell missed his connection to Allentown. The airline wanted to bus its passengers to Allentown, but Revell realized that his luggage had not made it onto the bus and got off. After finding his luggage had been given a final destination of Newark by mistake, Revell missed the bus. He collected his luggage, including his gun and ammunition, and decided to wait in a nearby hotel with his stuff until the next flight in the morning.
When Revell tried to check in for the morning flight, he again informed the airline officials about his gun and ammunition to have them checked through to Allentown. He was reported to the TSA, and then arrested by Port Authority police for having a gun in New Jersey without a New Jersey license. He spent 10 days in several different jails before posting bail. Police dropped the charges a few months later. But his gun and ammunition were not returned to him until 2008. link it was the airline's problem with connection, the airline's mistake in checking his bag not the whole way with it ending up only being checked to EWR when he was going to Alentown PA.the airlines change of plan in bussing him instead of the connecting flight. none of that was his decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 1:10:54 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 1:20:07 AM EDT
[#8]
Jesus Christ New Jersey!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 1:31:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought Revell was in NJ on an unscheduled layover due to a Problem the airline had. his trip did not include a scheduled stop in NJ. Am I wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Of course NJ judges say NJ can give the FOPA the middle finger. Elected by NJ for NJ. What I'm curious to, is what legal loophole they are using to circumvent the FOPA. By havign a lay over you are not traveling through, you are stopping some where that the gun(s) is/are illegal, so FOPA does not apply is NYC's justification. Years before revell I was flying to TN and was rerouted through Chicago, then I was told I would be there overnight. I had a glock, ar15 and beretta storm. I could not take possession of the guns and was concerned to even discuss it with the airline for fear my guns would pop out of baggage next to me and result in an arrest. I was planning on renting a car and leaving the airport and either calling the airline or hiring an Ffl to retrieve the guns Fortunately I managed to get on another flight that same day so the airline kept my luggage. I thought Revell was in NJ on an unscheduled layover due to a Problem the airline had. his trip did not include a scheduled stop in NJ. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 2:14:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gee. I'm sure glad that Reagan signed that FOPA act that did so much good for us. I guess I'll add having my firearms confiscated in New Jersey to that long list of things, along with making sure I can't buy a new, legal machine gun. Thanks Ronnie. I'll be the 2nd to say FRR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 2:17:49 AM EDT
[#11]
I am not a lawyer, but AFAIK New Jersey does not require a permit for possession. It requires a FOID to purchase a gun, but if you moved to NJ with your own weapons you don't need any paperwork. Therefore, when traveling if one keeps a gun locked unloaded in a case with ammo separate that is not "carrying" bit mere "possession" and should be legal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 2:58:14 AM EDT
[#12]
NJ is my least favorite place. I have never met someone from there that I did not find to be strange.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 3:04:48 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NJ is my least favorite place. I have never met someone from there that I did not find to be strange. Isn't Joisey that state with all the orange colored people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 3:49:09 AM EDT
[#14]
What is this 'Supremacy Clause' I keep hearing about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 3:51:41 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
– The Third Circuit said Friday that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey may continue to confiscate the firearms of non-New Jersey residents traveling through Newark Liberty International Airport, ruling a federal law protecting gun owners does not apply when walking through an air terminal. - See more at: http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/09/25/nj-court-says-nj-can-continue-violating-the-fopa/#sthash.KhQiaPTI.dpuf http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/9059 I see this going to SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 4:44:29 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is it Reagan's fault that NJ is ignoring Federal law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gee. I'm sure glad that Reagan signed that FOPA act that did so much good for us. I guess I'll add having my firearms confiscated in New Jersey to that long list of things, along with making sure I can't buy a new, legal machine gun. Thanks Ronnie. How is it Reagan's fault that NJ is ignoring Federal law? It is not RR fault New Jersey is ignoring Federal law. I was pointing out that "the lots of great things" that FOPA did for us are not necessarily worth the compromise we suffered to get them. New Jersey is choosing to snub this portion of the law, I invite you to submit a form 4 for a post 1986 machine gun, and see if you are able to snub some portion of FOPA that you might not agree with. I agree that Reagan is miles better than what we have now, but the fact remains, he signed away a significant second amendment right that is unlikely to ever be restored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 7:15:08 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gee. I'm sure glad that Reagan signed that FOPA act that did so much good for us. I guess I'll add having my firearms confiscated in New Jersey to that long list of things, along with making sure I can't buy a new, legal machine gun. Thanks Ronnie. Because it's Reagan's fault that New Jersey isn't following the law, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 8:38:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that argument is intellectually void. If the trip is continuos and you are merely leaving one form of conveyance for another to continue your trip you should be covered, that was clearly the legislative intent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
– The Third Circuit said Friday that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey may continue to confiscate the firearms of non-New Jersey residents traveling through Newark Liberty International Airport, ruling a federal law protecting gun owners does not apply when walking through an air terminal. - See more at: http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/09/25/nj-court-says-nj-can-continue-violating-the-fopa/#sthash.KhQiaPTI.dpuf http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/9059 They aren't violating fopa. As soon as you leave your car to walk into the airport you have no fopa protection. I have been telling people this for years. And that argument is intellectually void. If the trip is continuos and you are merely leaving one form of conveyance for another to continue your trip you should be covered, that was clearly the legislative intent. I agree with you, but remember that legislative intent does not carry the force of law. Antis would use the same argument against us using "loopholes" to keep AR15s when the legislative intent of the AWB and SAFE Act is to ban them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 10:30:08 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So before FOPA there was no protection, now there is protection in most of the country (though by law it should be all of the country), and you're blaming a dead man for a court ignoring the law. Got it. What's that expression about never going full something? You like ordering ammo on-line and not having to have your purchase logged? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Gee. I'm sure glad that Reagan signed that FOPA act that did so much good for us. I guess I'll add having my firearms confiscated in New Jersey to that long list of things, along with making sure I can't buy a new, legal machine gun. Thanks Ronnie. So before FOPA there was no protection, now there is protection in most of the country (though by law it should be all of the country), and you're blaming a dead man for a court ignoring the law. Got it. What's that expression about never going full something? You like ordering ammo on-line and not having to have your purchase logged? But, what about the fact the primary weapon that is "supposed" to be protected by the 2nd is no longer allowed? How is it so easy for people to ignore this fact? This is what we get for our side being represented by Republicans, bunch of lukewarm enablers are what R's are. <-- Like most gun owners as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 10:33:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No loophole, read the statute. It says nothing about you being protected while you walk into an airport with a gun in a case in your hand. I told you sox87 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Of course NJ judges say NJ can give the FOPA the middle finger. Elected by NJ for NJ. What I'm curious to, is what legal loophole they are using to circumvent the FOPA. You're in transit, it should be covered if you proceed directly to the into airport to legally check your guns as per recognized TSA procedure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 10:42:24 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*snip* ]It is a federal decision, legislative intent my ass, the statute clearly refers to travel by vehicle and provides no protection for switching vehicles. Tough shit, it's a badly written law that only envisioned driving, not air travel. Would even a nj court make up some BS exemption for moving a gun case from a disabled car to another vehicle, probably, but the statute does not say that. therein lies the problem with FOPA. some real losses were realized. but the benefits...? well, "tough shit, it's a badly written law..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2013 10:46:19 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any effort to go en banc? Glad to hear there were at least orals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well the third circuit has about 60 percent of their cases reaching SCOTUS reversed. Does anybody know if they heard orals on this case, or if it was decided on briefs? Seems 86 percent of their cases are decided on briefs alone, versus 73 percent on average in other circuits. Any chance the case may be heard en banc rather thn the three judge panel, or do they need to go to SCOTUS next? Oral arguments were on May 31, 2013. Any effort to go en banc? Glad to hear there were at least orals. Not yet |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
