Utah Man Arrested for "Legal" Gun

[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.

[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.