PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Case At The Supreme Court


Kharn
01-18-2011, 5:18 AM
Fox News story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/18/traveling-mans-gun-arrest-appealed-supreme-court/)
A late flight landed Utah gun owner Greg Revell in jail for 10 days after he got stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.

The Supreme Court could decide Tuesday whether to consider letting Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years.
More at the link, I'd love for NY and NJ to defend their laws to the SCOTUS.

The lawyer for the plantiff has some interesting history: Case history (http://www.regardinerlaw.com/cases.html), including a suit against the ATF's NFA branch.

Supreme Court docket (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-236.htm)

kermit315
01-18-2011, 7:02 AM
This is why I believe either Gene or Bill, or maybe both, say to not put too much faith in FOPA.

yellowfin
01-18-2011, 7:12 AM
This is why I believe either Gene or Bill, or maybe both, say to not put too much faith in FOPA.This will give the FOPA enforceability against state governments if it goes right.

Crom
01-18-2011, 7:16 AM
Interesting case! I can't tell from the docket, will there be oral arguments or is this to be settled with court filings only?

Caladain
01-18-2011, 7:23 AM
This will give the FOPA enforceability against state governments if it goes right.

Probably a very silly question, and perhaps there is a wiki page i missed, but what does FOPA stand for?

choprzrul
01-18-2011, 7:25 AM
The danger here is that SCOTUS decides to take the case and then decides against Revell. This would give the Port Authority the green light to run roughshod all over everyone's 2A rights.

.

NightOwl
01-18-2011, 7:26 AM
Probably a very silly question, and perhaps there is a wiki page i missed, but what does FOPA stand for?

I used google, it's handy, try it sometime. Firearm Owners Protection Act. There's a wikipedia page too.

Al Norris
01-18-2011, 8:13 AM
Cert was denied, this morning.

tankarian
01-18-2011, 8:18 AM
Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Man Arrested for Traveling With ‘Legal’ Gun

WASHINGTON (AP) — Missed flights only inconvenience most people. A late flight landed Utah gun owner Greg Revell in jail for 10 days after he got stranded in New Jersey with an unloaded firearm he had legally checked with his luggage in Salt Lake City.

The Supreme Court could decide Tuesday whether to consider letting Revell sue Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police for arresting him on illegal possession of a firearm in New Jersey and for not returning his gun and ammunition to him for more than three years.

Lower courts have thrown out his lawsuit

Revell was flying from Salt Lake City to Allentown, Pa., on March 31, 2005, with connections in Minneapolis and Newark, N.J. He had checked his Utah-licensed gun and ammunition with his luggage in Salt Lake City and asked airport officials to deliver them both with his luggage in Allentown.

But the flight from Minneapolis to Newark was late, so Revell missed his connection to Allentown. The airline wanted to bus its passengers to Allentown, but Revell realized that his luggage had not made it onto the bus and got off. After finding his luggage had been given a final destination of Newark by mistake, Revell missed the bus. He collected his luggage, including his gun and ammunition, and decided to wait in a nearby hotel with his stuff until the next flight in the morning.

When Revell tried to check in for the morning flight, he again informed the airline officials about his gun and ammunition to have them checked through to Allentown. He was reported to the TSA, and then arrested by Port Authority police for having a gun in New Jersey without a New Jersey license.

He spent 10 days in several different jails before posting bail. Police dropped the charges a few months later. But his gun and ammunition were not returned to him until 2008.
The rest of the story here (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/supreme-court-will-hear-case-of-man-arrested-for-traveling-with-legal-gun/)

I'm curious how Obama's appointees will decide on this. Will they be "wise" and "compassionate" as Obama described them and side with the little guy or will they side with the almighty State as the liberal statists they are?

CharAznable
01-18-2011, 8:19 AM
That's just completely messed up. What was he supposed to do? I suppose turn the gun in and then sue the airline. I hope he brings a massive civil action against them. I don't see how this can be fair in any sense of the word.

Bhobbs
01-18-2011, 8:21 AM
This kind of insanity has to be stopped. A right isn't much of a right if you can lose it by going from one state to another.

Why isn't the airline CEO arrested for an unlicensed handgun in New Jersey? The reason the pistol is there is because of that airline.

badicedog
01-18-2011, 8:25 AM
Wow, this has TSA fail written all over it! I hope he sues the living cr@p out of those clowns.

tankarian
01-18-2011, 8:26 AM
Wow, this has TSA fail written all over it! I hope he sues the living cr@p out of those clowns.


He is trying to. Lower court judges won't let him do it.

Quser.619
01-18-2011, 8:28 AM
Had something similar happen to while travel w/ my AR, so happy I was stranded in Utah instead. I cannot imagine the horror this poor man went through, especially since he was following Federal Laws regarding traveling w/ a firearm.

Though he probably should have left the gun w/ the airlines - not that they could be trusted. That why it would still be checked in & kept in a secure facility.

maddoggie13
01-18-2011, 8:30 AM
:lurk5:

Bhobbs
01-18-2011, 8:30 AM
There is another thread about this and it said his suit was denied.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=385841

armygunsmith
01-18-2011, 8:32 AM
Best of luck to him.

rrr70
01-18-2011, 8:34 AM
his suit was denied.

What a surprise.:rolleyes:

Wherryj
01-18-2011, 8:55 AM
Had something similar happen to while travel w/ my AR, so happy I was stranded in Utah instead. I cannot imagine the horror this poor man went through, especially since he was following Federal Laws regarding traveling w/ a firearm.

Though he probably should have left the gun w/ the airlines - not that they could be trusted. That why it would still be checked in & kept in a secure facility.

The problem is that he couldn't leave the firearm with the airline, at least not unless he wanted it to stay there forever.

The airline screwed up by putting Newark as the FINAL destination rather than a stop. The gun would have stayed there forever unless he picked it up there.

The issue is with the airline's error and the fact that New Jersey is absolutely unreasonable.

bodger
01-18-2011, 8:59 AM
Insanity. Ten days in jail. What a nightmare. He did nothing wrong.

DannyInSoCal
01-18-2011, 8:59 AM
Simply another reason not to fly...

E Pluribus Unum
01-18-2011, 9:08 AM
Dupe-a-licious...


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=385841

dfletcher
01-18-2011, 9:17 AM
Insanity. Ten days in jail. What a nightmare. He did nothing wrong.

I'll agree in spirit on the "nothing wrong" but he did violate FOPA if I read correctly & probably could have been treated alot worse - think of that fellow who initially got 7 years in jail in NJ. FOPA protects but requires your guns be not available to you in transit, I think this is something most folks don't realize. Obviously this makes things difficult when he got dumped at NJ, picked up his luggage and tried to board another plane. The practical question comes up if his guns were locked away and he didn't have a key, how the heck is TSA supposed to check them when he boards a flight he had not anticipated?

I think the correct remedy is to change the legislation to allow access to your guns enroute. It seems to me this corrects a perhaps overly cautious defect in the existing legislation.

RandyD
01-18-2011, 9:21 AM
The article that I read on this matter, reported that the Supreme Court rejected the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_gun_arrest

Dr Rockso
01-18-2011, 9:22 AM
Cert denied (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-bc-apfn-us--supremecourt-gunarrest,0,1612239.story).

"We recognize that he had been placed in a difficult situation through no fault of his own," wrote Judge Kent A. Jordan of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. However, the law "clearly requires the traveler to part ways with his weapon and ammunition during travel; it does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation."


What bull****...insane, ridiculous bull****.

yellowfin
01-18-2011, 9:34 AM
Why would SCOTUS avoid the chance to right a major wrong here?

yellowfin
01-18-2011, 9:36 AM
Why in the world would SCOTUS reject it? NJ and NY need to have a brick thrown at them, this would have been great.

Stonewalker
01-18-2011, 9:38 AM
The article that I read on this matter, reported that the Supreme Court rejected the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_gun_arrest

Rats... seems like it would have been the perfect Equal Protections case.

yellowfin
01-18-2011, 9:42 AM
Well, on second thought, since it's the LA Times isn't it possible this story could be inaccurate? Media these days isn't too big on reporting the facts accurately. Either way, this has GOT to be brought before the court at some point to get straightened out. I suppose for the moment that if this is true it's better than them ruling against us.

CCWFacts
01-18-2011, 9:59 AM
Don't rely on FOPA for anything other than air travel and if your flight gets canceled and you get stuck in NJ / NY / DC, don't touch your bag! Demand that the airline store it without you having to take possession of it. Talk to an attorney. Talk to the Port Authority police. Whatever. But don't take your bag!

UPS is exploring creating a service for travelers where they ship your stuff. It goes on commercial flights just like passenger luggage, but it's considered "cargo" rather than "luggage" because UPS is handling it. This means no TSA inspection, which means no chance for the TSA to steal things. It also means that, if your flight leaves you stranded in a constitution-free zone like NJ, your bag will go on without you, to the destination, in the care of UPS. I hope they offer this type of service. It would be of great value to gun owners. I guess they realized that checked luggage fees today are about the same as UPS shipping fees, but the convenience and safety of checked luggage is much worse than UPS, so they might as well offer travelers the ability to "ship" their luggage as "cargo". It all goes on the same plane anyway.

Advantages would be huge.

Same price as checked luggage fees. It can be insured, just like any other cargo (airlines provide very little coverage). The TSA, who are notorious for stealing things from luggage, won't have a chance to get their greedy fingers into your bags. You're safe from FOPA-style issues. They might deliver the luggage directly to the hotel, which is also more convenient than waiting for it.

I hope they go ahead and offer that service.

Bhobbs
01-18-2011, 10:34 AM
Don't rely on FOPA for anything other than air travel and if your flight gets canceled and you get stuck in NJ / NY / DC, don't touch your bag! Demand that the airline store it without you having to take possession of it. Talk to an attorney. Talk to the Port Authority police. Whatever. But don't take your bag!

UPS is exploring creating a service for travelers where they ship your stuff. It goes on commercial flights just like passenger luggage, but it's considered "cargo" rather than "luggage" because UPS is handling it. This means no TSA inspection, which means no chance for the TSA to steal things. It also means that, if your flight leaves you stranded in a constitution-free zone like NJ, your bag will go on without you, to the destination, in the care of UPS. I hope they offer this type of service. It would be of great value to gun owners. I guess they realized that checked luggage fees today are about the same as UPS shipping fees, but the convenience and safety of checked luggage is much worse than UPS, so they might as well offer travelers the ability to "ship" their luggage as "cargo". It all goes on the same plane anyway.

Advantages would be huge.

Same price as checked luggage fees. It can be insured, just like any other cargo (airlines provide very little coverage). The TSA, who are notorious for stealing things from luggage, won't have a chance to get their greedy fingers into your bags. You're safe from FOPA-style issues. They might deliver the luggage directly to the hotel, which is also more convenient than waiting for it.

I hope they go ahead and offer that service.

Why would you ever tell the police? What good would ever come of that?

Matt C
01-18-2011, 10:43 AM
Rats... seems like it would have been the perfect Equal Protections case.

Why would SCOTUS avoid the chance to right a major wrong here?

He sued under FOPA, not 2A or EP. FOPA should be irrelevant soon.

Patrick-2
01-18-2011, 10:46 AM
I FedEx stuff to my destination all the time if I need more than I can carry on board. It's pretty cheap when you factor aggravation and new airline check fees.

We rented a house in Florida for 2-3 weeks over the holidays and shipped 44 pounds of stuff ahead of us via FedEx Ground for only $33. Took two days and it was waiting in the house when we arrived.

It's even cheaper when you consider most airlines are now charging $25 for a single checked bag and you don't have to deal with the whole baggage ordeal. I got a toddler and don't want to wait in a crowded airport for Delta to tell me they lost my stuff.

We ship kids toys, food and kitchen knives (rental houses always have dull knives). I was going to ship my pistol and head to the range while there, but didn't bother.

Window_Seat
01-18-2011, 10:55 AM
Can he sue again on the District Court level?

Erik.

BillCA
01-18-2011, 11:52 AM
This is a pretty screwed up area of law.
I asked an attorney about it about 2000/2001, but used D.C. as the example, to wit:

Your flight from Dallas to Atlanta is scheduled to make a stop in Washington D.C. at 7pm then continues on to Atlanta at 7:45pm. You your checked luggage contains a legally owned handgun and some ammo, all within FAA regulations. In D.C. the aircraft incurs a "malfunction" and after a 3 hour delay, the airline cancels the flight to Atlanta, claiming they can't get a new plane there before the airport closes for the night. There are no available seats on other airlines due to the cancelation.

You're stuck in D.C. with luggage that contains a handgun - a serious crime in D.C. Now how do you get out of the mess?

The lawyer's first comment after researching this was "avoid flights that stop in places where your gun would be illegal". The legal avenues here are gray and murky as to who is responsible for what.


His advice: (Note: This was pre-9/11, so some rules have changed)
Explain to the airline that they've put you at risk. They need to put you up in a hotel outside D.C. This gives them a chance to reduce their own liability by getting you somewhere that you're legal.
If you need to claim your luggage due to the cancellation, spend $20 for a Skycap to pickup your luggage and follow you with it. Do not tell him what's inside the luggage. Pay him an extra $10 per 20 minutes he remains with you. Technically - and arguably - you do not "possess" your luggage at that time, the Skycap does.
If the airline is no help, contact the airport police and explain that under the FOPA your gun is legal inside your luggage, however the airline has breached their contract with you and left you in D.C. Ask if it's possible for them to store your firearm for you so you can claim it before departure the next day.
If neither the airline or airport PD can assist you, you have at least given both the airline and authorities a chance to prevent you from violating any laws while "in transit". Your other options are limited to;
(a) renting an airport locker and sleeping in the terminal all night to remain "in transit"
(b) skycap takes bag to cab, cabbie loads in trunk, drives you to Virginia.
(c) Renting a car or continuing your flight from another airport to avoid D.C.
The lawyer suggested trying #1 first, then going directly to 4(b) and getting the hell outta D.C. with a minimum of fuss. Sue the airline later for the additional expenses incurred.

Using the Skycap shows you were attempting to follow the spirit of the law while also making sure your firearm was secure from theft off the luggage carousel. Letting the Skycap hand the luggage to the cabbie to put in the trunk means it's not accessible to you during the ride to Virginia.

My thinking is to simply skip to step 4(b). I'd use the Skycap as a locally paid "cargo carrier" to haul my bag from the claim area to the cabs, let the cabbie toss it in the trunk, the drive out of the restricted area. This avoids the possibility of the airline contacting TSA or airport PD for assistance and having them declare that you're no longer "in transit" and thus subject to arrest.

Flopper
01-18-2011, 12:04 PM
UPS is exploring creating a service for travelers where they ship your stuff. It goes on commercial flights just like passenger luggage, but it's considered "cargo" rather than "luggage" because UPS is handling it. This means no TSA inspection, which means no chance for the TSA to steal things. It also means that, if your flight leaves you stranded in a constitution-free zone like NJ, your bag will go on without you, to the destination, in the care of UPS. I hope they offer this type of service. It would be of great value to gun owners. I guess they realized that checked luggage fees today are about the same as UPS shipping fees, but the convenience and safety of checked luggage is much worse than UPS, so they might as well offer travelers the ability to "ship" their luggage as "cargo". It all goes on the same plane anyway.

Advantages would be huge.

Same price as checked luggage fees. It can be insured, just like any other cargo (airlines provide very little coverage). The TSA, who are notorious for stealing things from luggage, won't have a chance to get their greedy fingers into your bags. You're safe from FOPA-style issues. They might deliver the luggage directly to the hotel, which is also more convenient than waiting for it.

I hope they go ahead and offer that service.

Wow, I hope they do, that sounds like a great idea.

Patrick-2
01-18-2011, 12:20 PM
Wow, I hope they do, that sounds like a great idea.

You can already do it. I do it all the time and it is pretty cheap.

Ship to your hotel, rented house, business or when all of the above fails...just ship to a FedEx or UPS location with a "Hold for Pickup" option. The cargo counter is usually right near the airport, for obvious reasons.

EDIT: I don't usually ship guns. But the principle is the same.

Smokeybehr
01-18-2011, 3:14 PM
UPS is exploring creating a service for travelers where they ship your stuff. It goes on commercial flights just like passenger luggage, but it's considered "cargo" rather than "luggage" because UPS is handling it. This means no TSA inspection, which means no chance for the TSA to steal things. It also means that, if your flight leaves you stranded in a constitution-free zone like NJ, your bag will go on without you, to the destination, in the care of UPS. I hope they offer this type of service. It would be of great value to gun owners. I guess they realized that checked luggage fees today are about the same as UPS shipping fees, but the convenience and safety of checked luggage is much worse than UPS, so they might as well offer travelers the ability to "ship" their luggage as "cargo". It all goes on the same plane anyway.

Advantages would be huge.

Same price as checked luggage fees. It can be insured, just like any other cargo (airlines provide very little coverage). The TSA, who are notorious for stealing things from luggage, won't have a chance to get their greedy fingers into your bags. You're safe from FOPA-style issues. They might deliver the luggage directly to the hotel, which is also more convenient than waiting for it.

I hope they go ahead and offer that service.

I might just go ahead and do that if I have to fly through an occupied state, like IL/NY/NJ to a free state. I have Pelican cases for just about everything already, so it won't be that hard to shove the case in an overnight box, or put some custom made locking systems on the cases to secure them with wire rope and slap a shipping label on the outside.

pointedstick
01-18-2011, 3:44 PM
He sued under FOPA, not 2A or EP. FOPA should be irrelevant soon.

Do tell! :eek:

press1280
01-18-2011, 5:49 PM
The clowns at the NY/NJ Port Authority already had the green light to hassle people traveling through, this just reaffirms it. The original decision in the 3rd circuit was a total joke. They said that Revell should have flagged down a cop in the airport and ask him to hold his weapon for him. Excuse me? Who the hell is going to walk up to a NJ cop and ask if he can hold your weapon for you!
FOPA should just be replaced by National Reciprocity. That will put an end to BS like this.

Patrick-2
01-18-2011, 6:19 PM
The clowns at the NY/NJ Port Authority already had the green light to hassle people traveling through, this just reaffirms it. The original decision in the 3rd circuit was a total joke. They said that Revell should have flagged down a cop in the airport and ask him to hold his weapon for him. Excuse me? Who the hell is going to walk up to a NJ cop and ask if he can hold your weapon for you!
FOPA should just be replaced by National Reciprocity. That will put an end to BS like this.

100% with you, even though people without permits from their home states would still get the hassle. Not to mention NJ residents.

I am going to love the Thune Amendment if it passes. I cannot wait for the NJ, CA and MD politicos to realize they can stop their own citizens, but not Bubba from Alabama. Yee haw, that is going to be fun.

Times Square. Bloomberg is going to explode.

pitchbaby
01-18-2011, 6:29 PM
The clowns at the NY/NJ Port Authority already had the green light to hassle people traveling through, this just reaffirms it. The original decision in the 3rd circuit was a total joke. They said that Revell should have flagged down a cop in the airport and ask him to hold his weapon for him. Excuse me? Who the hell is going to walk up to a NJ cop and ask if he can hold your weapon for you!
FOPA should just be replaced by National Reciprocity. That will put an end to BS like this.

National reciprocity as recently considered could have helped this guy since he is from Utah, but does little good for many of us from California who live in counties with stringent issuing standards. Remember, as it was introduced, it is only good for those with a resident permit. Non-res permits don't count.

press1280
01-19-2011, 3:34 AM
National reciprocity as recently considered could have helped this guy since he is from Utah, but does little good for many of us from California who live in counties with stringent issuing standards. Remember, as it was introduced, it is only good for those with a resident permit. Non-res permits don't count.

Of course, but the squeeze is already being put on those states. It's going to make it even more difficult for those states to say it's going to be "blood in the streets" if non-residents are walking around armed. Plus, FOPA's requirements are so stringent that you can easily find yourself outside its protections. A CCW on the other hand, has many protections. The current may-issues don't seem to have many limitations, I guess since very few have them.

Muzz
01-19-2011, 9:39 AM
Avoid New Jersey at all costs...

Even one harassment episode is one too many.

bodger
01-19-2011, 4:24 PM
I'll agree in spirit on the "nothing wrong" but he did violate FOPA if I read correctly & probably could have been treated alot worse - think of that fellow who initially got 7 years in jail in NJ. FOPA protects but requires your guns be not available to you in transit, I think this is something most folks don't realize. Obviously this makes things difficult when he got dumped at NJ, picked up his luggage and tried to board another plane. The practical question comes up if his guns were locked away and he didn't have a key, how the heck is TSA supposed to check them when he boards a flight he had not anticipated?

I think the correct remedy is to change the legislation to allow access to your guns enroute. It seems to me this corrects a perhaps overly cautious defect in the existing legislation.

I see your point there.
What could a person do when confronted with this situation? Sounds like the second your firearms are under your control in a place like NJ, you're running the risk of a jail sentence.

dfletcher
01-19-2011, 4:39 PM
I see your point there.
What could a person do when confronted with this situation? Sounds like the second your firearms are under your control in a place like NJ, you're running the risk of a jail sentence.

I really don't know. The only thing I can think of, other than tossing your suitcase in a UPS box and mailing it ahead, is to buy a 2nd lock, go to the airport and when time comes for "open & show" go directly to TSA - let them break the existing lock & attach your new one? Since you never have possession of key and luggage at the same time you might be OK. I'll admit, sure would take alot of faith or cojones to do that, I think.

Regarding "let the skycap/cabbie handle the luggage" I think the question of constructive possession has to be answered - one may not have physical possession of luggage & key at the same time, but if you're paying folks to lug it I think it could be said one has constructive possession - I don't know if that applies in FOPA.