D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act Introduced by Congressman Massie

By Dave Dolbee published on in General, Legal, News

After a high profile shooting, many fear the legislation or proposed legislation that may result. In fact, a news report just played stating lawmakers need the right to be armed to defend themselves. Since when did—simply by being elected to congress—mean their life or safety is more important yours or mine? Anyone can be a victim and has a right to self defense under the Second Amendment. Those sentiments in the previous statement are not based on my beliefs, but rather those by Congressman Thomas Massie, Chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus.

Representative Thomas MAssie

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY)

Here is the full release:

Washington, D.C – Today, Congressman Thomas Massie, Chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, introduced H.R 2909, the D.C Personal Protection Reciprocity Act. This legislation would allow individuals with a valid concealed carry permit issued from their home state to carry their firearms in the District of Columbia.

“After the horrific shooting at the Republican Congressional Baseball practice, there will likely be calls for special privileges to protect politicians,” Congressman Massie explained. “Our reaction should instead be to protect the right of all citizens guaranteed in the Constitution: the right to self-defense. I do not want to extend a special privilege to politicians, because the right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege, it is a God-given right protected by our Constitution.”

“If not for the heroic efforts of the United States Capitol Police at the ball field yesterday, things could have been much worse. What’s always evident in these situations is this: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

“To ensure public safety, we need to repeal laws that keep good guys from carrying guns, since not everyone has a personal police detail,” stated Congressman Massie. “The right to keep and bear arms is the common person’s first line of defense in these situations, and it should never be denied.”

Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever over such District as may become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Although Virginia extends reciprocity to concealed carry permit holders in many states, the members of Congress and accompanying staff traveled directly from D.C., and were traveling back to D.C after the practice was over. It was D.C.’s harsh gun control laws that prevented these law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.

Original Cosponsors include Reps Trent Franks (R-AZ), Scott Perry (R-PA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Ted Budd (R-NC), Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Jody Hice (R-GA), Justin Amash (R-MI), Mo Brooks (R- AL), Alex Mooney (R-WV), Rod Blum (R-IA), Ken Buck (R-CO), Todd Rokita (R-IN), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Keith Rothfus (R-PA) David Schweikert (R-AZ), Rick Allen (R-GA), Tedd Yoho (R-FL), Randy Weber (R-TX), and Bill Posey (R-FL).

Tags: ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (62)

  • Steve F

    |

    <>

    Ahh. It all makes sense, now.

    The three biggest sources of legal misinformation are, not necessarily in any order:

    1. Law enforcement officers;
    2. Insurance sales people;
    3. Real estate agents.

    They all know just enough to be dangerous, because they THINK they know what they’re talking about.

    But they often don’t. They learn superficially studied rules, without the exceptions or case law history.

    A FEDERAL law enforcement officer can carry almost anywhere. No relationship to what I have been discussing. Insofar as NY is concerned, you’re dead flat wrong. But having Federal authority for your carry, you can afford to be ignorant.

    Maybe you should offer to cover the legal fees of someone who takes your advice on this forum and goes driving out of NY, carrying, and has a problem.

    In finished bandying this about with you. If you think it’s prudent, why, put your Google or police academy knowledge against someone with a Juris Doctor degree and 30 years experience as a trial lawyer.

    Have a nice holiday weekend.

    Reply

  • Steve F

    |

    I’m responding to this:

    <>

    Unfortunately, it’s the site’s doing, not mine. I get the email notice of a post. I hit the REPLY noyyon in the email, it takes me to the site, and I post. I do this exclusively by smartphone.

    Apparently the link doesn’t take me to the right place,.even though it offers a “reply” option.

    And by the way, I know lots of Federal and state police folks. They are not usually good sources of legal information. They know a little…just enough, usually, to ofyen come to a wrong conclusion. That’s why there are agency staff lawyers and federal prosecutors…

    Reply

    • Deplorable Robert

      |

      Once again, maybe we weren’t using clear jargon.
      When you get the notification and you want to reply to that specific post, and you see the “Reply” AND a “COMMENT” BUTTON” at the bottom of notification. DO NOT HIT REPLY. Hit the COMMENT button, which takes you to the comment section, then you will see the specific comment you want to reply to. That “reply” button is RED. Hit that reply to address THAT specific post. Hope you don’t need a LAWYER to understand my lingo( sorry, couldn’t help myself LOL!) Maybe this will help,

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      The current dialogue hasn’t a thing to do with what your law enforcement acquaintances may or may not know about “legal information”, but rather it focuses squarely on what you claimed in this forum to know about the law; the result of which abundantly established that even as a self-professed attorney – you knew very little on this topic.

      Insulting your law enforcement buddies to evade the issue will not gain you back your credibility. The damage to your integrity is already too far done. But implicating the law enforcement community as a deflection tactic to cover your embarrassing incompetence here is a whole new low.

      I’ve repeatedly referenced the laws that obliterate all of your arguments. Don’t think it isn’t glaringly obvious to everyone reading that you have gone out of your way to avoid acknowledging that fact or addressing the law I have cited.

      Anyone reading our exchange in this forum is but one Google search away from knowing how utterly wrong you are, and yet you still persist in making an absolute fool of yourself with incongruent rhetoric in the hopes no one will notice your blunders.

      And for the record, there are far more attorneys that bungle our hard-worked cases due to your incompetent practice of the law. Your lack of knowledge for these laws, as you’ve so unabashedly displayed to everyone in this forum, speaks volumes to that end.

      Reply

    • Deplorable Robert

      |

      Yup. I agree 100%. Thanks, G-Man for your continued expertise.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Deplorable Robert,

      And thank you for your contributions as well. I meant to comment earlier how hard I cracked up over the end of one of your other posts in which you told Steve Feder, “Hope you don’t need a LAWYER to understand my lingo”. I was so shocked that he finally posted correctly after that too.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      “nyone reading our exchange in this forum is but one Google search away from knowing how utterly wrong you are,”

      You’re Google search. My law degree and 30 years experience.

      I think we’re done, here.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      Attempting to conflate my ability to legally transport firearms as a federal agent is a lame tactic when you know full well I’ve already distinctly clarified the law I’ve cited applies to everyone. Regardless, as an attorney you should have known this already.

      Your JD Degree with 30 years of experience is meaningless when you can’t even make a proper argument over such a simple matter. The bottom line is that you’ve yet to demonstrate an ability to prove anything up to this point. If you could, you should have handily been able to do so by now.

      Yet despite having had ample opportunity, you’ve not once attempted to quote any actual law, let alone any case law. The truth is, you and I both know none exists that could back up your wayward claims. One would think you’d have tried at least once by now to dazzle us all by showing off your 30 years of knowledge.

      Let’s review your failures:

      Despite your repeated claims that your permit is not honored anywhere other than VT, I’ve no doubt you have at least finally confirmed for yourself there are 24 states that do in-fact honor the NYC/NYS concealed carry permits.

      Likewise I couldn’t imagine the embarrassment that overcame you as you read up on my reference to FOPA as well. Your independent verification in which you shockingly discovered it actually does cover everyone to transport handguns through every state must have been exceedingly frustrating; especially knowing there’d be no possible way to explain away your ill-informed statements to the contrary.

      And if you are going to try and claim you haven’t done your own research since I’ve brought this all up, well then you’re simply not worth the lawyer’s salt you claim to be.

      Furthermore, attempting to belittle federal law enforcement as if our education is limited to a mere “police academy” makes you look desperate as well as petty. As an attorney with any experience in the federal courts, you should know we require at least a B.A. degree to be accepted for a position.

      Thereafter, our standards and training are quite extensive and specialized beyond your ordinary local law enforcement. In addition to career-long refresher and upgrade training, we are expected to pursue degree coursework in forensics, criminology and law. If you had any real criminal trial experience you’d have to know this in order to properly cross examine federal agents when defending your clients.

      In addition, if you’ve ever seen the inside of a federal court room you’d know we also sit as a member of the prosecution team and assist throughout most of each trial. That has a tendency to give us far more legal experience than some collections attorney that rarely sees the inside of a courtroom.

      In your last post you attempted to melodramatically close by ending with, “I think we’re done, here.” But undeservingly you never really even got started. Try actually talking real law with me rather than constantly using diversionary tactics. Maybe then you’ll actually earn that grand closure you thought was so climactic.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      I now see that you have changed your position. Now you are talking about “transport”.

      But this was about “carry”.

      Nice try. And you accuse me of avoidance!

      I have an idea. You should offer to pay the legal fees of anyone who takes your faulty advice I this forum, and ends up in trouble because of it.

      I counsel avoidance, based upon legal qualifications and 30+ years of legal practice.

      You counsel recklessness, based upon 35 years of being a policeman.

      Stick to police work. Your “thought” ends when you bring someone in. Then my brethren take over. You know, the people who know lots of the law, not just a tiny corner of it.

      You are exactly why policemen don’t make ultimate decisions regarding legality or prosecution. You are fact witnesses, no more and no less. You are not sources of legal information. THIS is why.

      Folks, follow this guy’s legal advice at your peril.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      I have never changed my “position” and there are plenty of posts to back that up and irrefutably prove you wrong.

      Very early on, and in multiple statements thereafter, it was you that changed the dialogue by opening it up to include the “transportation” of firearms in general – when you wrote, “Even if it was OK in DC, There’s the PITA of flying it there. Cant drive it there!”

      Everyone knows you can’t carry concealed onboard airlines, so by you bringing up airline travel -combined with your statement that you “Cant drive it there!” – forced the scope of the conversation to expand well beyond just concealed carry, and into other lawful methods of “transport”.

      Naturally anyone that is versed in criminal law (excluding you) would be forced to counter your outrageous claims by citing the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), and so I did.

      Thereafter I repeatedly and consistently brought up FOPA throughout multiple posts; yet you never once addressed it until now by issuing the inane claim that somehow I have suddenly changed my “position”.

      I can’t help that you’ve only just now decided to start playing attention to your own conversation. But the fact you’re only now catching up confirms the aspersions of incompetence I’ve cast towards you as quite warranted.

      As for your attempt to paint me as somehow offering “reckless” counsel, I leave you with an excerpt from my very first post:

      “It is every individual’s responsibility to research the laws for each state they intend to travel through with their concealed weapon.”

      Your record of you idiocy is right there, forever archived in this forum on the Internet, for all to see.

      Reply

  • Steve F

    |

    If you’re lucky, you won’t have to test your legal “knowledge”.

    But if you do, I can recommend some good criminal defense attorneys for you in a number of jurisdictions.

    Good luck with your plan and your understanding of the law.

    Reply

  • Steve F

    |

    All I will say in response is that your experience in transporting a firearm LICENSED TO CARRY IN NY STATE (makes a difference) is obviously lacking.

    If you want to break the law, or place yourself in a potentially compromising situation regarding carrying or transporting your weapon through and in other jurisdictions, that’s your business. Not a great game plan, but your business.

    I prefer the karate kid school of thought. . “Best defense, Daniel-san, not be there.”

    And don’t assume that others who abide by the letter of the law have “limitations.” Wow. What bull.

    Yeah, we obey the law. If you choose not to, that doesn’t make us “limited”. It makes you a criminal.

    Reply

    • Deplorable Robert

      |

      Steve F, seems you are new to this site. If you are addressing a specific persons comments, then touch the RED REPLY BUTTON under the person’s comment. This keeps it organized to that particular persons comments/ topic. You have commented to myself, and G Man, but we can’t tell who you are directing your comment to. Most here know how to do that..so, I can’t tell if you are telling me, or are referring to G Man’s post. He is a current Federal agent, and knows his stuff. Me,?, Just a strong 2 nd Amendment rights supporter who knows where I get my RIGHTS from and I live in Tennessee. Have a good one, and just remember: Gun friendly states need lawyers too.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve F,

      Since no one can tell who you are talking to, I will assume you were addressing me.

      Look I can’t help that I proved you wrong on several large issues after you banked your claim of being a lawyer just to give the impression that your bad information was somehow valid.

      At this point we are well beyond your ego, your embarrassment, or trying to save face. This is about the many good folks that depend on this forum to get good information.

      It should bother you that you have carelessly misled people under the pretense of being an attorney when you have been easily proven to not know what you are talking about. I am not questioning that you are an attorney, but you obviously haven’t got any legal experience in this particular area of the law.

      The fact that you’ve improperly used your credentials to claim you are a subject matter expert to back up some very inaccurate information places you under some serious scrutiny. Unfortunately anything you attempt to say going forward must also be treated with the same lack of credibility.

      I am not perfect, but as a law enforcement officer I am responsible enough to use due diligence to put out accurate information to the public. Everything I have posted is 100% verifiably in compliance with all Federal, State and Local laws – that includes NY City and NY State.

      Anyone, including you, can easily research the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) and see that we are all lawfully covered to transport a weapon through every State in the Union.

      As well, anyone can research reciprocity laws and see there are 24 States which honor New York’s concealed carry permits. Both of which you emphatically claimed, as an attorney I might add, did not exist. You simply need to refrain from commenting any further at this point.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      Wow. The hubris of a cop knows no bounds, sometimes. A police client of mine cautions young recruits against exactly your attitude when he teaches at the Academy. (Maybe you were sick that day.)

      If you think you’re sitting in any courtroom next to any federal prosecutor for any reason other than assistance with the FACTS of an investigation, you’re dreaming. The fact that you even imply that you are there to help with the law is hysterical. Their education (doctoral level) and experience dwarfs anything you’ve been exposed to. You want to be viewed as a legal authority, pour in the time and get the creds. Otherwise, you have no…er…cred.

      The plain fact is that a NY resident with a valid carry permit may lawfully carry across ONE state line: NY/VT. No other state will automatically recognize a NY permit (hell, they’re not even valid in NY City). This isn’t because NY is lax. Quite the opposite. It’s a reaction by other jurisdictions to NY having no reciprocity with anyone else (for the very reason that NY thinks that it does a better job than other states). Not logical on the part of other states, because NY actually does have standards that are among the strictest in the country. It’s more of a ‘tit-for-tat’ political response to NY not extending the courtesy to ANY other state.

      You see this in many areas of law. For instance, for political reasons, Florida has no reciprocity of any kind for attorney licensing for anyone with a NY license to practice. Unless you separately are authorized to practice there as a member of The Florida Bar (I am), having actually taken and passed the whole Bar Exam, your NY creds mean nothing. (Back when I started, I took that FL exam. Never saw so many 70-year-old men sitting for a test in my life!)

      It is the same with concealed carry. It’s not been immune to politics in the area of state reciprocity laws. You want to get arrested by the locals fast, drive out of NY on your NY permit, and have a police officer see it in another state (except VT).

      Now, there are some provisions that can be made in advance with certain states. They are a patchwork of arrangements with multiple states, hence my initial comment that it was a PITA. I figure out at one time that even making any available such advance arrangements, it was virtually impossible for me to drive to FL or CA.

      Even legally flying with a firearm in your luggage can be a problem if you unexpectedly get rerouted to another state (bad weather, etc.). (I believe that another poster mentioned that a friend of his was arrested under exactly those circumstances.)

      So, no, you don’t know the law. And your approach is typical of a certain law enforcement attitude unfortunately prevalent among some officers. Personally, I love it; makes them awfully easy to cross-examine, among other things. But that’s another topic…

      I’m finished responding to you. It’s clear that your are both uneducable and already know everything (a curious combination). Nothing I can say will convince you that your a legal authority. Accordingly, i’m fine trying.

      Have a nice 4th.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      Parenthetically, sorry about the typos. The mobile version of this forum is a bit unwieldy. I therefore miss some of the smartphone autocorrect annoyances.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      You’ve obviously missed the point… again. With 35 years of federal law enforcement experience I am under no illusions as to my purpose when assisting prosecutors during trials. However, despite being another of your diversionary tactics, that was never the point anyway.

      Rather my comment was merely to set you straight by pointing out the extensive amount of time federal agents spend with prosecutors sitting in on entire criminal trials. The result of which allows us to garner vast amounts of practical criminal law and case law knowledge over the years.

      Decades of experience, in conjunction with our continuing education and criminal justice degrees, offers an expertise that often far exceeds that of a non-criminal attorney like you. So consider yourself “dwarfed”.

      The “plain fact” is actually that the NY concealed carry permit hasn’t a thing to do with the lawful transportation of a firearm under FOPA. It protects the travel of every U.S. citizen that can lawfully possess a firearm in their state to any other state(s) without regard to the type of permit or where they reside.

      What is actually “hysterical” is you thinking you can only transport across “ONE state line”. Try convincing the hundreds of folks that lawfully drive across the country into, out of, and straight through NY to compete in public shooting matches. It happens quite regularly, but obviously that little tidbit escaped your supposed vast expertise in ambulance chasing law.

      Again, as an attorney you’ve failed miserably for not understanding this. Please, I implore you to go research FOPA under 18 U.S. Code § 926A – Interstate Transportation of Firearms before continuing to make a fool of yourself. There is simply no way for you to produce evidence that would refute the fact that people lawfully exercise their right under this law by transporting their guns throughout every state on a daily bases.

      It is also laughable that despite the 24 states that have in-fact codified their reciprocity laws which currently honor NY permits, you instead actually believe you need to make “advance arrangements”. I suppose you also believe every state has a concierge’s desk to call in and make such “arrangements” along with your hotel reservations.

      With each of your posts I’ve become increasingly concerned over the quality in which you’ve represented your clients when you can’t grasp or bother to research such fundamental concepts that are so easily reviewable under both federal and state statutes.

      It is probably good you don’t practice criminal law. Better you should just stick with your civil litigation firm chasing ambulances because you‘ve clearly established that criminal practice is definitely not your forte.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      Wow. Sir, you are either a troll or a fool.

      You obviously do not understand either the letter of the FOPA law OR how it’s administered.

      Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach.

      Hmmm. I’m in NY State, with a NY permit. The ONLY other place I may lawfully possess and carry my pistol is, in fact, Vermont. So FOPA or no, I can’t take it anywhere else, because I may not possess and carry it anywhere else. That’s where I started this ‘conversation’.

      AND…there are a number of states that yield to FOPA as a Constitutional requirement (Supremacy Clause, look it up), but only when asserted AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.

      Know what that means? Ahh. I thought not.

      One could only assert an affirmative defense once an arrest has occurred and charges have been brought.

      So there you are. Arrested. In jail. Charged. But hey, you can assert the defense of compliance with FOPA.

      FOPA is a great defense, right?

      Maybe. You’ll find out for sure on dispositive Motion practice. Say, 30 to 60 days after arrest.

      Oh, and even if you are released on bail, you might not be allowed to leave the jurisdiction where the charge is pending.

      That’s the kind of potential “win”, folks, that a policeman advises. Bail. Legal fees. Stuck in another jurisdiction.

      And don’t even get me started on the procedure to get your gun back after you “win”.

      A prudent lawyer tells you to avoid the issue. “Best defense, Daniel-san, not be there.”

      This “G man” is a font of legal misinformation, and more disturbingly, a source of just plain bad practical advice. He may know about guns, but that doesn’t translate into legal knowledge or practical advice based upon what he thinks is the law.

      Irresponsible. Dangerous. And, frankly, just plain dumb.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      Being fully aware of my lengthy federal law enforcement and courtroom experience, it is absolutely moronic of you to think I wouldn’t know what an “Affirmative Defense” is, or how the “Supremacy Clause” is applied. No doubt you almost tinkled your panties at the thought of having a “gotcha” moment. All I can say is you failed.

      I cracked up where you wrote, “…there are a number of states that yield to FOPA as a Constitutional requirement” – as if to give the impression states have a choice. They have no option but to comply due to the “Supremacy Clause”. Hard to believe you actually practice law. No wonder they call it “practice”.

      Let me remind you that I wasn’t the one that had to “look up” FOPA, you did. You’d never even heard of the law until I schooled you on it and posted the statute (your welcome). So please spare me you pretending to suddenly know anything about FOPA when it took me 8 posts just to get you to realize it even exists.

      Nevertheless, while I do appreciate the baby-steps you’ve taken to at least finally go “look up” FOPA, your initial interpretation is still quite flawed.

      Your incompetence stems from delving into criminal law you don’t understand, which is precisely why you, and only you, think your permit limits your travel to Vermont, when in-fact it does not. I’ll try to break it down for you in hopes you’ll finally understand it this time around:

      1.) Without question the “Supremacy Clause” makes FOPA – 18 U.S. Code § 926A a supreme law of the land thus overriding any State or Local law – Period.

      2.) The word “Notwithstanding” in FOPA ensures the text of the statute can never be misinterpreted as to convey power to allow lower state authorities to enforce conflicting law that would override FOPA.

      3.) The words “from any place” in FOPA are strict and mean exactly that – which MUST include NY. The words “to any other place” are strict and mean exactly that – which MUST include travel to ANY other state in the country.

      4.) The words “lawfully possess and carry such firearm” in FOPA is a condition applied to the “person” only at their start-point of travel and end-point of travel, but NOT at points in between. And if that condition is true on each end of travel, lawfully makes the person “entitled to transport” a firearm throughout any state along their path of travel between these two points.

      So let’s make your destination be Arizona, since it’s the most gun friendly state in the Union and anyone is allowed to carry concealed there without a permit, including visitors from ANY state – like NY.

      Despite your erroneous statement that the firearm is to be “locked”, the actual statute only says, “unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment”. But locking it up is safer, so go ahead and do that… and then drive to Arizona. There is absolutely nothing unlawful about your venture.

      It’s that simple. You’ve lost the argument because you can in-fact lawfully travel through and to other places besides Vermont. No matter how many personal fears or “PITAs” you attempt to inject into this argument, it will never make your argument lawfully correct. Technically and legally you’re just going to have to accept that I am correct and you are not.

      You seem to be receptive to other resources I offer you rather than my word alone, so here is a link to a real criminal defense firm that confirms what I’ve been trying to get across to you. They even use D.C. as an example to travel through. So go argue with them:

      https://www.washingtondccriminallawyer.net/washington-dc-gun-lawyer/transporting-firearms/

      I’ve done all I can at this point to educate you on the law. However, I have no doubts your prevailing ignorance will have you right back here worming your way into another point of contention based on your inability to comprehend criminal law.

      In closing I have to say the fact you are an attorney who should have understood all this from the start makes you even more wrong. Thanks for playing, but it is really time for you to take your bat and ball and go home now.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      Are you really this limited in your thinking?

      What happens, say, if you’re a New Yorker and you end up, say, overnight-maybe even unintentionally-in a state that is NOT like Arizona. In a state where you do not have the right to legally carry? Another posted noted the problems a friend had when their flight was diverted. This is a problem you don’t need to buy into.

      Sorry, but from a practical standpoint your position is irresponsible and foolhardy.

      Even in you “win” a transport argument, if it ends up being on motion, or as an affirmative defense, you haven’t really “won”, have you?

      I note your failure to address any of that. Yes, let’s BOTH take our stuff and go home.

      You go be a policeman. It’s what you know. Stop dispensing legal advice without a license. And bad legal advice, to boot.

      And I promise not to arrest anyone; I’ll stick to the practice of law in the two states and 5 Federal courts in which I am admitted.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      The reason you “note” my failure to address how to handle diverted flights is because I’ve been too busy teaching a lawyer the law. But now that you ask, the solution is quite simple and has even been addressed by the Third Circuit Court in Revell v. Port Authority of NY & NJ:

      “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 Section 926 and prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun regulations.”

      It is really as simple as this Court recommends. Now as to ground travel; first it must be stated that officers are better trained on FOPA these days which is why you rarely see any violations.

      Unlike some concealed carry laws, there is no obligation to tell an officer you are transporting a locked firearm in your trunk. In the unusual circumstance your firearm becomes discovered – say an accident ejects it from your trunk – it is recommended you travel with a copy of the FOPA law in your vehicle and provide it to the officer.

      Aside from this, you’d have to be doing something pretty suspicious to escalate a simple traffic stop to a level that warrants being asked about firearms. But on the off chance they do ask, it is your right not to answer. If asked for consent to search your vehicle, simply refuse it – ask for your citation – and go on your way.

      Thereafter, for police to proceed with a non-consensual or warrantless search of your vehicle they’d have to have probable cause. But again, that would mean you were doing something pretty unlawful anyway. During a search, once they came upon your locked gun container they could not access it without obtaining an actual search warrant.

      By this time you probably deserve whatever happens next. My point is you really have to work hard at getting arrested just for a locked firearm in your trunk. There would be several other charges before they ever got to the actual gun.

      Moving along, you wrote, “Even if you ‘win’ a transport argument…”. But I can stop you there because there is no such thing as losing these rare cases, as long as the arrestee has followed the simple rules set forth in the statute.

      Even the most publicized airline case mentioned above occurred in the most draconian gun state of New Jersey, and yet it ended with a dismissal of all criminal charges. The only reason the Circuit Court got involved was over a civil damage suit filed by Revell after his charges had to be dropped. If you were Revell’s attorney I have no doubt he’d be sitting in prison right now.

      Look, you act as if no one is exercising their rights under FOPA. But the reality is thousands of gun owners lawfully transport their firearms annually without incident. The protections afforded by FOPA is the primary reasons for this.

      You are the one acting “irresponsible and foolhardy” for taking up a position which could allow your family to be murdered on vacation. An all because you were too inconvenienced or scared to lawfully transport your firearm. Most would agree a funeral is far less “practical” than the extremely rare chance you might spend a day in jail.

      You chose to put your attorney credentials on the line and lost severely to a lowly cop. At every turn I outmatched your arguments and proved you wrong using the law. All you ever had was your opinions filled with personal fears. And yet now you have the gall to claim this argument somehow to be a draw by saying “let’s BOTH take our stuff and go home”. Not a chance.

      Only you, the loser, has to go home. And as you travel there (unarmed of course) you can contemplate my upcoming retirement along with my eligibility to take the Bar Exam. I’ve already aced all the practice exams so I know I will pass.

      As an attorney, your willingness to withhold full and proper advise to clients as to their rights and protections under the law is as reprehensible as it is repugnant; and all because of your own personal fears which have nothing to do with actual law.

      What you are advising is that despite the protections of actual laws designed to alleviate such fears, that people should instead live their lives as slaves to the injustices and treachery created by the illegal acts of subordinate governments run by tyrannical demagogues.

      There are those that limit their lives by fear and others who flourish with courage. Were it not for the bravery of the latter, you’d still be living under British rule.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      Oh. So you’re right back where I began this. Compliance is possible, but a PITA.

      It’s a good thing you’re not arguing Motions for a living. Stick to being a policeman.

      Reply

    • Steve F

      |

      You, sir, are a fool.

      If you seek confrontation in real life the way you seem to in the advice you give, I’m amazed that you’re still alive.

      My clients know that the best defense is not to place oneself in the position of being arrested (take a look at how many times you mention arrest in your last post).

      You are concerned with the outcome of the contest after the arrest. The better advice is to avoid the whole thing in the first place. You may consider arrest and the initial aftermath of same to be no big deal. Maybe you simply see it so much that you lack perspective. Kind of like how some lawyers forget how uncomfortable a client may be in a courtroom.

      The Karate Kid school of lawyering makes sense. Setting up for a needless arrest does not. “Best defense, Daniel-san: not be there.”

      I repeat: your advice, and your position, are irresponsible. Stick to being a cop.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Steve Feder,

      But you are not “right back where you began.” You got a valuable lesson on the law, and I didn’t even bill you for it.

      As you lick your wounds, you can senselessly banter on about your humiliating defeat all you want. I’ll give you that much. But it will never undo the fact that as a lawyer you were monumentally proven wrong by a cop – post after post after post.

      You can easily dismiss your shame because this was only a web forum, but I would have decimated you were this a court of law. Because what you can prove is all that really matters.

      Here’s a litmus test: You and I both know you would never want your partners, clients, or any other professional colleagues in law to ever read our exchange. You’d be lying if you said otherwise.

      Your problem was, that as an ambulance chaser – with absolutely no criminal defense experience – you’ve become too fixated on “arrests” that simply aren’t happening. You failed to consider that is my area of expertise, not yours.

      And for the record, my last post only mentions “arrest” twice because they’re simply not happening due to the protections afforded by FOPA. So please do yourself a favor and get over your unhealthy obsession with phantom “arrests”.

      A reasonable person can clearly see I systematically addressed each of your comments with a direct response using references from law. That you see answering questions with facts as “confrontational” makes it abundantly clear why you’re nothing more than a paper pushing contract attorney.

      The bottom line is you got in way over your head on a topic you knew absolutely nothing about, and now can’t find a gracious exit. But here is a clue, there isn’t one – so just stop coming back. At this point your nothing short of a troll.

      Reply

  • Steve F

    |

    Heh…I meant, of course, that concealed knives with blades of 3.5″ or less are legal most places.

    In addition, assisted open (e.g., Kershaw/Zero Tolerance “speedsafe” system) are legal…The test is usually whether you need to touch some portion of the blade (flipper, thumb stud) to open it. That’s generally ok in most jurisdictions. Full automatics (touch a button or a slider to open) are usually no-nos.

    Check the law where you’re going. Those are generally the rules, but there are exceptions. And the statutes in some places are incredibly imprecise.

    Reply

  • Big Bill

    |

    “(under 3’5″ almost always ok)”

    I have a machete shorter than that.

    Reply

  • Steve F

    |

    Liberal? Not me…

    But I have a professional license that goes bye-bye of I’m caught carrying illegally. So i carry legally.

    You want to ignore the law, it’s your business. Not a great game plan, though.

    Oh, and I’m not s gun expert, at all. But I AM a knife expert. And given the usual distances of criminal encounters, it’s much more likely knife time than gun time.

    A knife is preferable in close for a number of reasons. And I’ve carried a knife for a hell of a lot longer than I’ve carried a gun. When I fly, I put a couple in my dopp kit that meet the laws where I’m going for concealed blades (under 3’5″ almost always ok) in my checked luggage, and I have them at the other end (usually retrieved and on me as soon as I pick up my baggage). And of course, no problem driving.

    Defenseless? Hardly. Oh, and my carbon fiber cane is also a hell of a weapon.

    Reply

    • Deplorable Robert

      |

      As I said no offense meant. Wasn’t calling YOU a Liberal, just that you live under their thumb. Great thing knives are! Good luck

      Reply

  • Chuck

    |

    What about if you’re from a state that doesn’t (as if any state should or legitimately CAN) require a permit? Out of luck, or good to go?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: