Utah Man Arrested for "Legal" Gun

[Ghostwriter]

Any comment from the attorneys out there as to what happened to this person and what the likelihood of the SCOTUS agreeing to his petition.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews#

The Supreme Court could decide Tuesday whether to consider letting Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years. Lower courts have thrown out his lawsuit.

Revell was flying from Salt Lake City to Allentown, Pa., on March 31, 2005, with connections in Minneapolis and Newark, N.J. He had checked his Utah-licensed gun and ammunition with his luggage in Salt Lake City and asked airport officials to deliver them both with his luggage in Allentown. 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.

[Kevin]

Lots of issues there.

I'd probably have to have better than an Oklahoma only Westlaw subscription to give a semi-intelligent answer.

[DSTRen13]

You'd think the police would have better things to do - the man didn't do anything wrong

My conceal-carry permit is for my state. I don't take guns out of state because it's too much of a hassle. But if I were going to do so, I'd hate to think that a mistake on the part of the airlines could get me arrested and my property taken away and kept for years. That's just ridiculous.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

My conceal-carry permit is for my state. I don't take guns out of state because it's too much of a hassle. But if I were going to do so, I'd hate to think that a mistake on the part of the airlines could get me arrested and my property taken away and kept for years. That's just ridiculous.

I don't own a gun and never have. Used to hunt with my Dad when a lot younger but I have to agree with you 100%. Just how the heck is one to know all the laws of a state? What if this were a hunting rifle and he was on the way to hunt elk in Maine and was stuck in Newark? I hope the SCOTUS lets him nail the authorities in NJ.

[Psi U MC Vito]

NJ has particularly strict firearm laws. To give an example, if you are a member of NYPD and happen to live in NJ, you need tell the state police every time you are bringing your firearm across the border, even if it is a police issue one.

[MysticCat]

SCOTUS denied the petition, so they won't be hearing the case.

The Third Circuit's opinion can be read here. The gist is that Revell sued the Ports Authority and one of its police officers under the federal Firearm Owners’ Protection Act ("FOPA"), which allows gun owners licensed in one state to carry firearms through another state under certain circumstances. Among these circumstances is that the owner of the gun does not have ready access to the gun while in transit. The Third Circuit ruled that when he took his luggage (including the gun) with him to the hotel, he had ready access to it, so he did not meet the requirements of FOPA. The court stated:

Although we conclude that Revell fell outside of [FOPA's] protection during his stay in New Jersey, we recognize that he had been placed in a difficult predicament through no fault of his own. However, [FOPA] clearly requires the traveler to part ways with his weapon and ammunition during travel; it does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation. Stranded gun owners like Revell have the option of going to law enforcement representatives at an airport or to airport personnel before they retrieve their luggage. The careful owner will do so and explain his situation, requesting that his firearm and ammunition be held for him overnight. While this no doubt adds to the inconvenience imposed upon the unfortunate traveler when his transportation plans go awry, it offers a reasonable means for a responsible gun owner to maintain the protection of [FOPA] and prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun regulations.

(Slip op. pp. 21-22)

The Court also ruled that Revell could not sue in federal court for damages resulting from the Ports Authority's failure to return his property because New Jersey law provided adequate remedies for him in that regard and he failed to take advantage of those adequate remedies. That's pretty basic.

[AlphaFrog]

It's those quotation marks that will get you every time.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I don't own a gun and never have. Used to hunt with my Dad when a lot younger but I have to agree with you 100%. Just how the heck is one to know all the laws of a state? What if this were a hunting rifle and he was on the way to hunt elk in Maine and was stuck in Newark? I hope the SCOTUS lets him nail the authorities in NJ.

Isn't this the old adage of Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Isn't this the old adage of Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

True but I'd like to give benefit of the doubt; this man was only checking luggage in NJ due to a flight diversion/delay.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

True but I'd like to give benefit of the doubt; this man was only checking luggage in NJ due to a flight diversion/delay.

No, he actually picked up his luggage, took it out of the airport to a hotel with him overnight then brought it back to the airport and attempted to re-check the luggage. The argument of the court is that he should have approached NJ law enforcement to find out what the laws of the state regarding his firearm was rather than just act as if what he was doing was perfectly legal. He did not do this, so he is responsible for the consequences. Unfortunately, that includes being arrested. I wouldn't have thought it was a big deal, either, but then again, I don't travel with guns. Note to self, when traveling with firearms, know the laws regarding firearms in the areas you are traveling. IF you are forced to stop in an unfamiliar territory, ASK!

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

No, he actually picked up his luggage, took it out of the airport to a hotel with him overnight then brought it back to the airport and attempted to re-check the luggage. The argument of the court is that he should have approached NJ law enforcement to find out what the laws of the state regarding his firearm was rather than just act as if what he was doing was perfectly legal. He did not do this, so he is responsible for the consequences. Unfortunately, that includes being arrested. I wouldn't have thought it was a big deal, either, but then again, I don't travel with guns. Note to self, when traveling with firearms, know the laws regarding firearms in the areas you are traveling. IF you are forced to stop in an unfamiliar territory, ASK!

So are you saying that if you fly with checked firearms you should know the law in all states in case of an emergency landing or diverted landing. Get real. Like the article says, he was traveling to PA, NOT NJ. It's reasonable to assume he knew the law in PA but not necessarily the laws in NY, KY, OH,NJ.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So are you saying that if you fly with checked firearms you should know the law in all states in case of an emergency landing or diverted landing. Get real. Like the article says, he was traveling to PA, NOT NJ. It's reasonable to assume he knew the law in PA but not necessarily the laws in NY, KY, OH,NJ.

No, that is NOT what I said. I said, know the laws in the places you are traveling and if you are diverted, ASK before you walk out of the airport with a gun when you don't know the local laws. If you think I am unreasonable, apparently you are wrong since this is the opinion that has been upheld. He had a duty to find out NJ's gun regulations before bringing a gun into NJ. He could have notified the police of his situation and avoided all of this. He can't sue them because of his mistake. Boo hoo. It was a mild inconvenience for his lack of knowledge. I'm sure he won't make the same mistake again.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So are you saying that if you fly with checked firearms you should know the law in all states in case of an emergency landing or diverted landing. Get real. Like the article says, he was traveling to PA, NOT NJ. It's reasonable to assume he knew the law in PA but not necessarily the laws in NY, KY, OH,NJ.

The same way I looked up the rules for flying with cough syrup after being prescribed it while on vacation. And while you might like to give the benefit of the doubt, the court disagreed. Sometimes you get cut a break, but the technicality is the actual law. Just like sometimes the cop will give you a break for breaking a law when you're driving in an unfamiliar state. But really, they're well within their rights to give you a ticket.

You can bitch about it, but you aren't going to win a lawsuit.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So are you saying that if you fly with checked firearms you should know the law in all states in case of an emergency landing or diverted landing. Get real. Like the article says, he was traveling to PA, NOT NJ. It's reasonable to assume he knew the law in PA but not necessarily the laws in NY, KY, OH,NJ.

Not at all. This wasn't a criminal action where he was being punished for violating NJ law. It was a civil suit under the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which is intended specifically to keep him from having to worry about knowing the laws in all states he might travel through. Instead of having to keep up with the laws in all states you might pass through, you just have to know your responsibilities under FOPA. One of those responsibilities is to keep your firearm where it is not readily accessible while you travel.

The Ports Authority wasn't trying to punish him; all the charges against him were dismissed, I would guess because the prosecutor did give him the benefit of the doubt. He was trying to seek damages from them. The court said -- quite properly, I think -- that he couldn't seek damages for violation of his rights under FOPA because he didn't abide by his responsibilities under FOPA. In other words, by taking his gun to the hotel, he removed himself from FOPA's protections.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not at all. This wasn't a criminal action where he was being punished for violating NJ law. It was a civil suit under the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which is intended specifically to keep him from having to worry about knowing the laws in all states he might travel through. Instead of having to keep up with the laws in all states you might pass through, you just have to know your responsibilities under FOPA. One of those responsibilities is to keep your firearm where it is not readily accessible while you travel.

If this was not a criminal action, why was he detained for 10 days until bail could be posted? I understand posting small amounts of bail for lots of different type misdeameanors, but 10 days? I simply think the state of NJ and the authorities there we trying to be jerks and they succeeded. Hell you an use a gun and rob a convenience store and not be held for 10 days while awaiting bail. This is just overkill. But what the hell, it is what it is.