Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
twency
Question for the lawyers (or anyone else who, while not a lawyer, can provide some insight):
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921 appears to be the relevant definitions section for § 926A. It defines "firearm" but not "place". However, it contains this definition:
This clearly indicates that, at least in this definition, "place" need not refer to a state as a whole. Otherwise it would not be possible to have "commerce between places within the same State". Does this imply that the "any place" language in the FOPA need not be read to refer to states as wholes, but rather to places within states?
That was addressed in my report. You'll also note, if you read the enclosures from BATFE, that they continually parroted 921 but didn't expand on it meaning or application, if any, to 926A.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tl_3237
That was addressed in my report. You'll also note, if you read the enclosures from BATFE, that they continually parroted 921 but didn't expand on it meaning or application, if any, to 926A.
I don't see the 921 definition of "interstate commerce" discussed in the report insofar as the text directly posted here, but I do see the question/discussion in the attached BATFE docs. As you note, the BATFE response is clear as mud, and doesn't really answer the question.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
December 3rd I'll be asking this question at the NJ2AS monthly meeting to Evan Nappen. I will print out this sticky and let him review it and I will ask my questions as well, and bring back what ever information I can.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
here is a VERY simple question...
if FOPA ONLY applies to the states in between the origin and destination...
then it would be logical to assume that the ONLY time you could transport a handgun in the originating state (in this case NJ) is when within the exempted destinations..
in NJ that means range.. gun shop.. etc..
if that were in fact true.. and ANY other transport was a crime.. and FOPA does NOT cover you while traveling in your state of origin.. then why are people allowed to fly out of NJ with handguns ALL the time... because it would be irrelevant as to if you were going to PA.. FL.. or WV.. again that is assuming that it is assuming FOPA does not protect in the ALL the states traveled through..
now if of course it DOES protect.. then flying out of NJ with a gun makes perfect sense.. but you can't have it both ways.. it either protects or does not protect in the home state.. the destination would be moot..
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vladtepes
here is a VERY simple question...
if FOPA ONLY applies to the states in between the origin and destination...
then it would be logical to assume that the ONLY time you could transport a handgun in the originating state (in this case NJ) is when within the exempted destinations..
in NJ that means range.. gun shop.. etc..
if that were in fact true.. and ANY other transport was a crime.. and FOPA does NOT cover you while traveling in your state of origin.. then why are people allowed to fly out of NJ with handguns ALL the time... because it would be irrelevant as to if you were going to PA.. FL.. or WV.. again that is assuming that it is assuming FOPA does not protect in the ALL the states traveled through..
now if of course it DOES protect.. then flying out of NJ with a gun makes perfect sense.. but you can't have it both ways.. it either protects or does not protect in the home state.. the destination would be moot..
^^^ Great question! It was something I was thinking about too. It seems that the much of the "you can't" crowd's reasoning on why FOPA doesn't cover us is based on the definition of "place" in §926. I didn't see it clearly defined in the original poster's post.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vladtepes
here is a VERY simple question...
if FOPA ONLY applies to the states in between the origin and destination...
then it would be logical to assume that the ONLY time you could transport a handgun in the originating state (in this case NJ) is when within the exempted destinations..
in NJ that means range.. gun shop.. etc..
if that were in fact true.. and ANY other transport was a crime.. and FOPA does NOT cover you while traveling in your state of origin.. then why are people allowed to fly out of NJ with handguns ALL the time... because it would be irrelevant as to if you were going to PA.. FL.. or WV.. again that is assuming that it is assuming FOPA does not protect in the ALL the states traveled through..
now if of course it DOES protect.. then flying out of NJ with a gun makes perfect sense.. but you can't have it both ways.. it either protects or does not protect in the home state.. the destination would be moot..
Very good point, and duly noted...I will also add this to my question to Nappen.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
I have to wonder, if "place" really does mean "state a a whole," why didn't they just say that?
I don't see how "place" could possibly be construed to mean anything other than the common dictionary definition. Saying that "place" means "State" is like saying that "Dog" means "any mammalian quadruped" when passing a law that regulates transportation of "dogs."
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ehidle
I have to wonder, if "place" really does mean "state a a whole," why didn't they just say that?
I don't see how "place" could possibly be construed to mean anything other than the common dictionary definition. Saying that "place" means "State" is like saying that "Dog" means "any mammalian quadruped" when passing a law that regulates transportation of "dogs."
The quotes from the Congressional record provided certainly gives compelling evidence to the 'place = state' interpretation, IMO.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tl_3237
The quotes from the Congressional record provided certainly gives compelling evidence to the 'place = state' interpretation, IMO.
I don't disagree. However, it's bone-headedly stupid, or an intentional ambiguity designed to trip people up, or both, you know, because the State would never write laws to be so intentionally confusing or misleading for the purpose of creating more offenders.
Re: FOPA transport protection in states of origin/destination - UNLIKELY [A Report]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ehidle
I don't disagree. However, it's bone-headedly stupid, or an intentional ambiguity designed to trip people up, or both, you know, because the State would never write laws to be so intentionally confusing or misleading for the purpose of creating more offenders.
I'm still stuck on how in 921 it's possible to have "commerce between places within the same State" though.
