Ammo For Sale

« « Magazine Ban Stuff | Home | Victory in Cali » »

So much for that

High court denies appeal in NJ travel case.

24 Responses to “So much for that”

  1. alan Says:

    So it’s an injustice system now. Good to know, I can plan accordingly.

  2. anon Says:


  3. wizardpc Says:

    New rule for gunnies: No connecting flights in NJ. (And NY, IL, CA, and any other state that requires licensing)

  4. Jeremy Says:

    What, you expected Your Elected Betters and Their Minions to admit culpability?

  5. GD Says:

    Maybe he should have sued the airline?

  6. aeronathan Says:

    So apparently FOPA ’86 has no purpose other than prohibiting us peasants from acquiring full auto weaponry. Am I reading that correctly?

  7. trackerk Says:

    Flights get diverted all the time. Just because your itinerary doesn’t pass through the anti-freedom zones doesn’t mean you won’t. If you must fly ship your firearms via UPS. If you check them, do not take possession of your bags until your final destination. Be prepared to bid a fond farewell to your firearm if necessary, but do not touch your bag.

  8. ATLien Says:

    Simple Solution: invade and liberate NJ. If the cast of “Jersey Shore” become collateral casualties, all the better.

  9. Jake Says:

    Aeronathan: It looks like it got them to drop the criminal charges – this was just asking permission to sue. He should have gotten it, but at least he’s not a felon.

  10. AndyB Says:

    Stop me if you’ve heard this: I hate this state.

  11. Jake Says:

    Okay, now that I’m not commenting from my phone…

    The bar for this kind of lawsuit is set pretty high – it has to be knowingly in obvious contradiction of the law (of course, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” only holds true for us peons). Unfortunately, this was a situation that was not clearly addressed in FOPA ’86 – as the 3rd Circuit Court judge noted, the law “does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation.” Since it doesn’t look like there was any significant prior case law, either, then NJ met the requirements for immunity. SCOTUS didn’t really have any grounds under the law and its own precedents to let it move forward (under current interpretations of the Second Amendment).

    This is an issue that Congress needs to address. Simply clarifying the law in these circumstances would prevent this kind of dismissal (if not the original arrest) from happening again. Giving it some teeth would be even better.

    Of course, stripping NJ of its defacto gun ban would be best, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

  12. wfgodbold Says:

    Those penumbras never emanate when you need them to, do they…

  13. Bubblehead Les Says:

    Unless it’s an emergency, I refuse to fly, and will spend the extra day or so and drive. If I need to send a firearm out of state, I’ll ship it commercial with all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed just to cover my butt. Plus, I have been known to bypass states that refuse to honor CCW permits, but will honor silly laws like Gay Marriages. “Full Faith and Credit” doesn’t mean each state gets to pick and chose what laws they must honor.

  14. J. Wright Says:

    Where’s Tony Soprano when you need him most?

  15. Mike From Philly Says:

    Innocent till proven gun owner.

  16. Robert Says:

    This needs to go screaming to Chris Christies desk, asap.

  17. Diomed Says:

    Somehow, I don’t think Christie gives much of a damn…

  18. Paul B Says:

    Pretty hard to get the popo to admit error or have the courts slap them if in error. I would have got on the bus and let the airlines handle it. They usually don’t lose a bag, they just misplace them temporaily and since the gun was declared on check in you are covered for loss. Unless it is the pistol your great grand daddy had at appomatix.

    SCOTUS really can’t do much as it was mentioned there is not much case law for this to proceed.

    Bad deal all around.

  19. Ash Says:

    What Jake said. FOPA clearly does not apply in this case. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t read it. There is nothing in FOPA about protecting overnight possession in a hotel.

    Why didn’t his lawyer appeal on general 2A rights grounds given Heller? The FOPA angle was guaranteed to lose.

  20. Ian Argent Says:

    Original case predates Heller. And for all the airport is in NJ, the cops were from Port Authority, not NJ. Also, civil suit, not criminal.

  21. Brad Says:

    #11 +1!

    Exactly right.

  22. Ash Says:

    Thanks Ian. I still think he was crazy to pursue a FOPA case, but each to their own.

    In the long run this loss is academic since the NJ gun laws days are numbered.

  23. Ian Argent Says:

    His case was against the actual cops, not against the government – he was suing to get damages for having his civil rights violated (Section 1983 suit IIRC). I suspect it’d have been different if he has actually been prosecuted – which he wasn’t.

    I’ll have to say, this is a case for the judges *not* legislating from the bench. The law really is unclear; like so many other of our federal firearms laws. Again, that wasn’t what the suit was about. This needs to be fixed legislatively – I’m not sure the courts *can* fix it judicially.

  24. Jake Says:

    FOPA clearly does not apply in this case.

    I think it’s more that FOPA does not clearly apply in this case – it doesn’t address the issue at all. Which means that (if the courts work the way they’re supposed to) if the criminal charges had gone to trial the courts would have ruled to acquit (vagueness in the law should result in a ruling in favour of the accused) but to dismiss a civil suit because of that same vagueness.

    Why didnít his lawyer appeal on general 2A rights grounds given Heller?

    As Ian pointed out, the arrest predates Heller so there was no clear precedent to tell the cops they were in the wrong. That lets them claim qualified immunity.

    (As always, IANAL)