skinnyb82 Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:26 AM Share Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:26 AM Another idiotic ruling comes out of the Third Circuit. This time, they decided that FOPA does not apply if your guns are encased and otherwise in your possession as in you're checking your firearm(s). In other words, you get re-routed to Newark or JFK, say goodbye to your firearms. This is splitting hairs at its finest. "In our view, plaintiff here has failed to satisfy even the first requirement of the first step of the process, i.e., that Congress intended that section 926A benefit this particularplaintiff. This is evident from the plain meaning of the statute. Although the unwieldy sentence that comprises section 926A is drafted in a roundabout way, on a careful reading its language is clear and unambiguous. It begins by establishing a clear positive entitlement: a person who meets its requirements 'shall be entitled' to transport firearms incertain circumstances.... '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.' 18 U.S.C. § 926A" Then this load of crap, it basically means that FOPA does not cover your luggage when it's NOT in an aircraft, so your guns are free for the taking anywhere in the Third Circuit's jurisdiction. "Moreover, if there were any doubt about the statute’s vehicular limitation, the final part of the sentence that follows -- the “Provided” clause -- again makes clear that only vehicular transportation is included in the statutory grant. It states: '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.' 18 U.S.C. § 926A (emphasis supplied). This clause, on its face, presupposes transportation of the firearm in a vehicle. It follows from this plain meaning that an ambulatory plaintiff who intends to transit through Newark Airport is outside the coverage of the statute. But it is precisely such people whose alleged rights under section 926A the Association seeks here to vindicate." In other words.... "In light of the plain meaning of the statute, fully corroborated by the legislative history, we hold that section 926A benefits only those who wish to transport firearms in vehicles—and not, therefore, any of the kinds of 'transportation' that, by necessity, would be involved should a person like those represented by the Association wish to transport a firearm by foot through an airport terminal or Port Authority site." Here's the published opinion:http://www2.ca3.usco...rch/123621p.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:44 AM Share Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:44 AM I never understood any of this crap happening in airports. Airports are supposed to be under Federal law, and jurisdiction. Outside the airport grounds one could still argue a different story but this **** inside airports has to stop. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:53 AM Share Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:53 AM I never understood any of this crap happening in airports. Airports are supposed to be under Federal law, and jurisdiction. Outside the airport grounds one could still argue a different story but this **** inside airports has to stop. . "Pass the law, let the courts decide if it's constitutional or not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted September 19, 2013 at 02:12 AM Share Posted September 19, 2013 at 02:12 AM better yet, get FOPA amended then. When judges act like idiots, one way around it is to show them what was meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rail Posted September 19, 2013 at 03:29 AM Share Posted September 19, 2013 at 03:29 AM The northeastern states are going to be an even tougher nut to crack than California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_j Posted September 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM Share Posted September 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM This all came from the Revell case, where a Utah man stayed overnight because of a missed flight and was arrested when trying to check his firearm the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.