Yeah, I’m in Alabama, and am going to a Project Appleseed training event next weekend in Tennessee (high probability of rain and all of that–I’ve been wet before). It’s all the South, you see, so there shouldn’t be people messing around with me during that time.
And, I’ll have some ammo for all the firearms, and the permit to carry concealed, and all of that. I’m just hoping there won’t be any stupidity going on. Well. We go forward.
If I could do Greek here, I would. In the interregnum: MOLON LABE.
That’s the distinction? I can drive through McDonalds and I’m legal, but if I stop and sit down for lunch at Cracker Barrel, I’m committing a felony? Surely a judge wouldn’t find that the law hinges on such a triviality.
I simply disagree with your overall interpretation of the law. Nothing says that during your trip to Vermont, when passing through NY, and only then, that you have some sort of duty above and beyond what any other traveler going through NY would do, and I believe that would include allowed eating, stopping at hotels, stores, etc.
You seem to read the law as if it requires someone to travel “without haste” or “without undue delay.” I see no such qualifier in the law, and a court should not as well.
I don’t disagree with your thought process, but do you want to risk your freedom, your money and your right to own firearms on what a court in NY (or NJ or MD or DC) might decide on the matter? Better safe than sorry.
As for empty cartridge casings being illegal or considered to be equivalent to live ammo, that tells me an awful lot about both governments and gun control advocates.
Of course I would conduct myself that way and advise anyone else to do so. But this is the problem with these vague laws: they require reasonable people to conduct themselves far below the level of prohibited activity just to be safe…all the while heroin dealers are driving across NY with machine guns.
I know that legislators cannot write laws to cover every eventuality, but at least try to limit it somehow.
I agree completely. It’s absurd that we have to worry about laws that are illogical and just about impossible to understand.
I also think every law should expire after a period of time, or lawmakers should have to eliminate one law for every new one they write. Along with term limits at all levels of government, too, of course.
You don’t have to like it, but it’s true. As an example, you can read up on the cases of people arrested by New York City police for firearms violations because their plane was diverted to a NYC airport under emergency circumstances. The stop wasn’t planned and they did nothing more than claim their property.
You do NOT play semantic games with law enforcement in known anti-gun jurisdictions. As I said, even if you’re right you’re facing detention, making bail, lawyer fees, etc., and you’ll probably never see your gun again even if you win.
Do you have a cite for that? I searched for any stories of planes being diverted to NYC and gun owners being arrested, but couldn’t find anything. I found plenty of stories of people thinking that because they were legal gun owners in their home state, there was nothing wrong with bringing a gun on a vacation to NYC, but that’s just their own ignorance biting them in the ass.
I haven't seen one where it's just a diversion. They normally involve situations where a flight is either diverted or late ( causing a missed connection) and there is no flight available until the next day. So the owner retrieves his firearm, spends the night in a hotel and is arrested the next day when checking in for the flight. Part of the problem is retrieving the weapon and staying in the hotel overnight -the firearm and ammo are absolutely accessible so 18 U.S. Code § 926A wouldn't really apply to that time period. But there's another problem , too - the statute doesn't require the police to take your word for it that you can legally possess a firearm where your travel originated and at your ultimate destination. You may ultimately have the charges dismissed if you are able to establish that your travel complies- but in many places, that decision is not going to be made quickly enough to avoid being arrested in the first place.
But **UltraVires is right- **there’s really no reason the statute couldn’t be more specific by setting parameters for the duration of stops or permissible reasons for stops. For example, there’s no reason that it could say that travel must be continuous and uninterrupted except for 1) layovers during travel via common carrier where the owner does not take possession of the firearm or 2) stops for gas food or restroom access where no individual stop is longer than one hour and total stopping time in any one state shall not exceed two hours.