Just as a point of information, the news articles aren’t clear about that. It seems that some may have been on the way in, some on the way out, and in at least one case it was someone from a cruise ship undergoing a port search on his way back to the ship after a port stopover.
I don’t think it matters. Why should Turks and Caicos care about someone leaving with guns or ammo in their possession? Because clearly they had it in their possession while in the country, which is illegal and subject to serious penalties.
Stop trying to make this into some crazy conspiracy theory, Beck. T&CI have really serious gun laws, as does most of the rest of the world. They also have serious gun violence problems that have just recently started because of warring drug cartels. It’s a huge problem for them, and almost all those guns are coming from south Florida. That’s all there is to it.
Very little of this is true for domestic flights. Handguns aren’t treated any differently than long guns, pursuant to local laws at the destination and departure. Also includes if your flight is diverted, it would not be prudent to take possession in NYC. Ammo can be carried in a hard-sided box including in the same case as the firearm, it just can’t obviously be loaded.
Given that the islands are a British Overseas Territory, it should be no surprise to anyone that they have some pretty strict laws about guns and other weapons.
There’s lots of BOTs, usually with a good deal of autonomy on things like this, and you’re not hearing about Anguilla, BVI, Caymans, or Montserrat doing similar. I’m not sure what the US tourist numbers are but I’d think that it’s not just that more people are going there to result in incidents.
The T&C happens to be the closest to the USA and has a bunch of all-inclusive resorts built on it. So it attracts the cheapest non-expert travelers. Traveling to any of the other Caribbean BOTs is more cost, more time, and less of the “All you can drink (and oh by the way eat)” come-on that makes T&C vacations so popular.
This is a bit off the subject of the OP, but it’s a story that I’d like to share simply because it takes place entirely within the continental US. It also involves the aspect of taking something out of a state, rather than bringing it in.
In 2009, my wife (we were engaged at the time) was selling her house in CT and moving to NC to be with me. She had several handguns that her late husband had owned and she was concerned about transporting them from CT to NC. CT has very strict firearms laws. On her behalf, I called the CT State Police to ask about transporting the handguns out of the state. I got a very nice and helpful officer in a relevant department.
I described the situation to the officer and asked what I should do to transport the handguns out of the state when traveling by car.
“You can’t do that legally.”
“Why not?”
“You’re not permitted to transport the guns except for certain purposes and to certain destinations within the state.”
“OK. Can she sell the guns or give them to somebody else? She’s leaving the state.”
“No. She doesn’t legally own them. When her husband died, she would have to have completed an application to take ownership of them, just as with the transfer of ownership between two living persons.”
“So, she can’t take them with her and she can’t get rid of them legally?”
“Correct. But did you say she’s taking them out of the state permanently and changing her residence?”
“Yes.”
“We have a policy that we will not take any steps to prevent that. They need to be in a secured and locked container while you’re driving. If a LEO stops you and inquires if you have any weapons in the car, answer truthfully. You will probably be detained for an investigation anyway.”
“Thanks…I think.”
We made it to NC just fine, but it was a bit surreal for someone who had been living in NC and has had a carry permit for many years.
It’s not even all that clear here in the US. Stun guns and tasers require a FOID (a license) to buy and possess here in Illinois like any other firearm (and banned altogether within Chicago until recently). But they’re readily available over the counter an hour north or east in Wisconsin and Indiana. Oppositely, we have legal cannabis and 1am liquor sales that our neighbors need to visit us to get.
The FOPA of 1986 makes interstate transport legal. Maybe she should have done what CT wants ahead of time, but it’s unenforceable when leaving. Gray areas are how long you can stop for during travel, stricter states you should not dally.
Dad died and he had two nice revolvers that were never used. (Panic bought after Rodney King). My step-mom asked me to sell them. I took them to a local gun dealer in Santa Barbara and he said that before he could buy them I had to become a registered gun owner and then submit some kind of family transfer form to Sacramento and once that was approved I would be the legal owner and he would buy them from me or consign them for me.
I took the easiest multiple choice test on the spot and became (and remain) licensed with the great State of California to own a firearm. I never got around to getting the form and months passed and that shop went out of business.
I eventually went to a different place with the guns and told the guy that I wanted to start the process of selling them. I showed him my laminated license and he told me that he didn’t need to see that. He then entered the serial numbers of the guns in the database to see if they were listed as stolen, copied my driver’s license and then exchanged the guns for cash.