PDA

View Full Version : Infringement Question


falawful
08-30-2009, 12:56 PM
Gents,

Was wondering about this the other day, one for the legal eagles...

So FOPA defines that while one is on an interstate journey, one cannot be harassed by the local yokels in anti jurisdictions. For example of one was driving from Nevada to Oregon via California with an AW, you have 'free passage' if transporting/storing in a certain manner.

I would assume that this is because FEDERALLY you are in the clear with a so-called AW.

Would this FOPA-centric view not be a reasonable judicial 'test' for 2A infringement?

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 1:34 PM
So FOPA defines that while one is on an interstate journey, one cannot be harassed by the local yokels in anti jurisdictions. For example of one was driving from Nevada to Oregon via California with an AW, you have 'free passage' if transporting/storing in a certain manner.


You are correct that if you are actually on a bona fide journey from Las Vegas to Portland via California, you could pass through with a Colt Sporter with detachable magazine and pistol grip as long as it was unloaded in a locked container.

-Gene

Merle
08-30-2009, 2:40 PM
Why?

If the state can regulate how you carry/store, can't they regulate what comes into the state?

Also, what makes it being unloaded & in a locked case okay?

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 3:13 PM
Why?

If the state can regulate how you carry/store, can't they regulate what comes into the state?

Also, what makes it being unloaded & in a locked case okay?
Federal law pre-empts certain state laws. David Hardy had a good post on this recently:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/08/guide_to_inters_1.php

-Gene

nicki
08-30-2009, 3:57 PM
I understand that New York will prosecute anyone passing through, say someone traveling from PA to Vermont regardless of what the FOPA says.

The FOPA was passed in 1986, that was before the CCW movement started to gain traction across the United States. Prior to 1987, I believe the number of states that were issuing CCW permits was around 17.

The intent of the FOPA was to allow persons to travel from one state to another without having to risk prosecution for violating state and local gun licensing and registrations.

The vote on the Thune amendment shows strong support for national carry.
Depending on upcoming elections, it could even be a veto proof majority.

Nicki

falawful
08-30-2009, 4:27 PM
Yes, and WHY does federal law protect one on such a journey?

Because it has been ID'd as a 2A infringement, no?

My suggestion is that if whatever is ok'd on the basis of FOPA, would a similar analysis not be a relevant judicial 'test'?

locosway
08-30-2009, 4:29 PM
Yes, and WHY does federal law protect one on such a journey?

Because it has been ID'd as a 2A infringement, no?

My suggestion is that if whatever is ok'd on the basis of FOPA, would a similar analysis not be a relevant judicial 'test'?

Because travel is essential for many communities who thrive on tourism. If someone is driving from Oregon to Arizona to see the Grand Canyon why should they be limited to CA law if they're only passing through to spend money in another state?

Big Jake
08-30-2009, 5:06 PM
The law you are referring to is known as "Peacable Journey". You cannot make any stops in the state that the weapons are illegal in except for quick gas/potty break or emergencies. This was an ammendement to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

If you do stop then you fall under the police powers of that state!

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 5:25 PM
Yes, and WHY does federal law protect one on such a journey?


Because congress passed a pre-emption law under it's commerce clause powers. Courts can't (and usually don't) make such "positive" law.

-Gene

bohoki
08-30-2009, 7:19 PM
yea the innerstate commerce clause should render all local regulations void since it would affect persons wishing to travel and when people travel they need to buy gasoline and people having to avoid certain areas would cause gasoline stations in more lax juristictions to have an unfair advantage

Merle
08-30-2009, 9:08 PM
Well, the reason I ask is that I do travel from NV to CA for fun (Starbucks and BlockBuster's) and second to visit family.

If I remove my BB, do I risk the wrath of the CA DOJ? In either or both cases?

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 9:35 PM
Well, the reason I ask is that I do travel from NV to CA for fun (Starbucks and BlockBuster's) and second to visit family.

If I remove my BB, do I risk the wrath of the CA DOJ? In either or both cases?

The firearm and its possession have to be legal at both ends of you trip. If you travel NV->CA, then the firearm has to be CA legal in CA.

-Gene

Merle
08-30-2009, 9:53 PM
Thanks Gene.

That was my impression too - hence the BB just in case something happens (e.g. DUI checkpoint w/ AR on the back seat). The less questions asked, the less that need to be answered.

snobord99
08-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Well, the reason I ask is that I do travel from NV to CA for fun (Starbucks and BlockBuster's) and second to visit family.

If I remove my BB, do I risk the wrath of the CA DOJ? In either or both cases?

Yea. It sounds like you're traveling to the state, not through it.

1923mack
08-31-2009, 7:20 AM
tag

Liberty1
09-02-2009, 3:44 PM
Federal law pre-empts certain state laws. David Hardy had a good post on this recently:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/08/guide_to_inters_1.php

-Gene

Thanks! The links (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=59) led me to Nirvana :cool2:

VERMONT--A person may freely and lawfully carry (openly or concealed) a firearm without a permit, so long as it is done without the intent or avowed purpose of injuring another person.