FOPA Does Not Apply to Airports? Third Circuit 9/13/2013

[ungawa]

This isn't entirely true.

The problem is that as per the letter of the law in FOPA, what NJ is doing is legal. As per FOPA, a non-resident can travel THROUGH a NJ airport (stop or connection), so long as:

- You were legal to possess the firearm at your point of origin
- You declared and checked the firearm as per FOPA at your point of origin
- You are legal to possess the firearm at your destination
- The stop or connection in NJ doesn't require you to take possession of your firearm

It's the last point that's the wrinkle. If your stop/connection involves a layover or any other situation where you need to take possession of your firearm, you will likely be in violation of various NJ laws.

The ruling I linked said specifically that FOPA only applies to vehicular transport and not to airports. That is the law of the land in the Third Circuit, unless you take it to the US Supreme Court, or unless you can show me how that's not what it said.

I very well might have missed something but from what I read I think you missed it.

All firearm possession in NJ requires a NJ FOID,

Not true.

which is something I don't believe they issue to non-residents.

Also not true.

[tl_3237]

This isn't entirely true.

The problem is that as per the letter of the law in FOPA, what NJ is doing is legal. As per FOPA, a non-resident can travel THROUGH a NJ airport (stop or connection), so long as:

- You were legal to possess the firearm at your point of origin
- You declared and checked the firearm as per FOPA at your point of origin
- You are legal to possess the firearm at your destination
- The stop or connection in NJ doesn't require you to take possession of your firearm

It's the last point that's the wrinkle. If your stop/connection involves a layover or any other situation where you need to take possession of your firearm, you will likely be in violation of various NJ laws. All firearm possession in NJ requires a NJ FOID, which is something I don't believe they issue to non-residents.



As for NJ residents who DO have a FOID, I'm not sure what would happen if they tried to check a firearm. If they follow all proper laws regarding transport TO the airport, then technically they're not in violation of NJ law or FOPA, as they are legal to possess the firearm at the point of origin. However, I'd wager a bet that State Police and/or Port Authority police would arrest first and ask questions later, because so far with non-residents this fear tactic is working quite well for them.

What really needs to be done to address this problem is for FOPA to be re-written or amended to address the very common situation in flying where a delay, cancellation, or layover would require a traveler to collect their baggage and then re-check it once they're able to continue their journey. Another option is for the airlines to allow travelers to leave their baggage checked, or at least keep checked the firearms which they have been declared. With all the money that companies like UPS have put into tracking packages, one would think that the airlines would invest in such technology, as it would solve not only this problem, but others involving baggage.

NJ possession is permitted under the following independent circumstances:

1. exempted profession/activities;
2. longarms possessed with an NJFID card;
3. handguns possessed with an NJCCW (cannot use NJFID)

Yes, non-residents can get an NJFID and an NJCCW (theoretically)


For longarms with an NJFID there should be no problem. For handguns -- an NJCCW or exemption under NJS 2C:39-6 is required.

^^^THIS. In fact the same 3rd Circuit said as much in the Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 137 (3d Cir. 2010) ruling.

-------

Just for another point of reference, the concurring Judge Jordan in this instant ruling gets the point:

In fact, the Majority concedes that § 926A can cover
travel by planes, trains, and automobiles. (Maj. Op. at 7 n.3.)
That concession leads to a puzzlement: given the Majority’s
interpretation of § 926A, how does one get to the airport or
train station, check one’s luggage containing a firearm, but
still come under the protection of § 926A? It may be easy to
say, as the government did during oral argument, that
travelling by plane is permissible, as long as the airport the
traveler is departing from is within a state in which he is
permitted to carry a firearm. But that hardly seems to be the
purpose of the statute. For if that were the case, the statute
would be of very limited utility, as air passengers were never
likely to face prosecution by the states whose air space they
traversed. The purpose of the statute seems more likely to be
the protection of, for example, a traveler who lives in Easton,
Pennsylvania, and wishes to go hunting in Montana. The
closest place likely to offer a variety of flights is not in the
traveler’s home state, but is in New Jersey, at the Newark
Liberty International Airport. Accepting the Majority’s
concession, but not its statutory interpretation, that traveler
comes within § 926A’s scope. But if the Majority’s statutory
interpretation is controlling, that traveler faces prosecution
when attempting to make his trip, unless he has a carry permit
in New Jersey. Despite the Majority’s disclaimer, its
interpretation of § 926A appears to effectively limit the
statutory protection to travel by private vehicles.
...
In short, § 926A is not the plain and unambiguous
statute that the Majority portrays, and it is not a stretch to
think that it was meant to protect interstate travel by many means, not just in private vehicles.

Concurring judgement page 6-7

as did DOJ's Assistant Attorney General in 2005:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/doj_doc_nyc_air.pdf

Sept/Oct has been bad months for us given this ruling and the Pa Superior Court ruling in McKown