FOPA Protection through MD

[BigMikeM31]

I just saw in another thread that lodging is one of the allowed stops through an un-gun-friendly state based on FOPA regulations.. The fellow in the other thread claimed that similar language was in the FOPA and I'd like to clarify that. I'm planning on going to the Delaware shore for a vacation this summer and I generally stop in MD on the way down so that we can get across the dreaded bridge before the traffic gets insane. Is there any truth to lodging being an allowed stop on a FOPA protected journey?

Citations would be much appreciated.

BTW---I tried to search for similar threads but came up empty.

[tl_3237]

I just saw in another thread that lodging is one of the allowed stops through an un-gun-friendly state based on FOPA regulations.. The fellow in the other thread claimed that similar language was in the FOPA and I'd like to clarify that. I'm planning on going to the Delaware shore for a vacation this summer and I generally stop in MD on the way down so that we can get across the dreaded bridge before the traffic gets insane. Is there any truth to lodging being an allowed stop on a FOPA protected journey?

Citations would be much appreciated.

BTW---I tried to search for similar threads but came up empty.

There is no direct mention of what are reasonable necessary stops in 18 USC 926A (FOPA) however they can be deduced. Consider a trip from PA to AZ for example (assuming that you qualify at origin/destination and compliant transport). It would be inconceivable that such a trip would be possible without stopping for such necessities as fuel, food, 'nature calls', car repairs, overnight lodgings, etc.

Provided your MD overnight is justifiable from a travelling perspective and FOPA attached to the trip then you would be covered while in MD - even overnight. One word of caution - keep you guns in the FOPA travel mode which will mean leaving them in the vehicle overnight. If you take them out at the motel you end the FOPA protection and become subject to MD law. Additionally you would have to requalify for FOPA at the resumption of the trip with MD as your origin. Unless you qualify for an exemption under MD Criminal Law 4-203, which you probably don't, you would then have a BIG problem.

[fingers80002]

I just saw in another thread that lodging is one of the allowed stops through an un-gun-friendly state based on FOPA regulations.. The fellow in the other thread claimed that similar language was in the FOPA and I'd like to clarify that. I'm planning on going to the Delaware shore for a vacation this summer and I generally stop in MD on the way down so that we can get across the dreaded bridge before the traffic gets insane. Is there any truth to lodging being an allowed stop on a FOPA protected journey?

Citations would be much appreciated.

BTW---I tried to search for similar threads but came up empty.

Lodging is not covered by FOPA.......

The only stops FOPA cover is , food, fuel, restroom......

[tl_3237]

Lodging is not covered by FOPA.......

The only stops FOPA cover is , food, fuel, restroom......

?????????? -reason??

[cigarmanpa]

Lodging is not covered by FOPA.......

The only stops FOPA cover is , food, fuel, restroom......

got a cite for this?

[oneAndrewshort]

according to The Almighty Google, it is approximately 2 and 1/4 days from the upper portion of Maine to the lower portion of California. that is pure driving time. I know I shouldn't have to, but I'll make mention that there are specific laws that detail the road to dwell ratio for anyone professionally transporting and it is unreasonable to require that citizens be expected even to max that allowable time frame out, let alone drive for 2.25 days without rest.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/71...6---A000-.html

it doesn't say anything about gas, restrooms, or lodging, but all of those are elements inherent to standards of professional (let alone civilian) transportation and are within reasonable expectation.

if anything, I'd say to create something, name it "travel plan", that shows you are traveling from State A to State B with a stop in State C for rest. this way you have something of a CYOA measure. if it became an issue, you would then be able to produce your document that shows intent of transporting from a legal state to a legal state using FOPA standards at all times and that you merely needed to stop for a rest in State C along the way...as planned.

[fingers80002]

?????????? -reason??

got a cite for this?

The same logic, applied to car carry , in PA without a LTCF................

[BigMikeM31]

Fingers, in the FOPA, are there specifically enumerated reasons for stopping? If so, could you possibly post a link?

[tl_3237]

The same logic, applied to car carry , in PA without a LTCF................

Could you flesh this logic out a bit? - I don't see your analogy.

Also, I don't find anything in the UFA sect 6106(b) (exemptions allowing car carry by unlicensed individuals) that would exclude overnight stays when a reasonably necessary part of a trip.

[tl_3237]

Fingers, in the FOPA, are there specifically enumerated reasons for stopping? If so, could you possibly post a link?

This is the totality of the portion of FOPA addressing interstate transport:

18 USC § 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms


Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

You'll note the absence of any mention of necessary stops intrinsic to the trip.

As I indicated in my original post, absent any specific guidance you apply the 'reasonable person' test - what would a reasonable and prudent person do under the same or similar circumstances? From this you can deduce what would be allowed while accomplishing the trip.

PS what's the 'dreaded bridge' you refer to in your OP?