Flying with Handguns

[BreechFace]

Hypothetical question here:

I travel on business quite often to states that I’m entitled to carry based on my CCW reciprocity. If I were to fly to one of those said states and for reasons outside my control I get rerouted say for the sake of discussion into Chicago, New Jersey or the like and I get stuck there for overnight. Given the situation the airlines wants to uncheck my luggage to me, this creating a scenario that I’m in a jurisdiction (with very draconian gun laws) in which I’m breaking the law with the possession of my firearm.

How does one handle such a situation?

 

[herrwalther]

This is a very dicey scenario, one that I have contemplated when flying with handguns. Your options are quite simple. You could accept your firearms from the custody of the airline and risk arrest in a state that does not care how legal your firearms are or refuse them. If you refuse to take possession of your own firearms in a state where they are not legal, that forces the airline to be the custodian of them. Refusing custody is the safest legal option for you but you also are at greater risk that your firearms will be lost or stolen while you are grounded in an unfriendly state.

 

[DocRock]

Ostensibly, under federal law you remain "in transit" and while adhering to interstate transport law, federal law supersedes state and local law.

However, NY and NJ both have a track record of ignoring federa! Interstate transport law and treating persons in transit and in adherence to federal law as in illegal possession of a handgun in the state. Allegedly this was addressed by the Justice Dept in 2008 or 2009 with very clear instructions to the State AGs on the matter, and I have a copy of Rep. Don Young's letter to the Justice Dept asking that such instructions be issued to NY and NJ that I carry, along with the federal interstate transport regs any time I transport firearms across state lines.

Having said that, I don't trust either state.

 

[RickD427]

My best recommendation is that you do not accept custody of any bag back from the airline that contains a firearm.

Please refer to the Second Circuit's decision in the consolidated case of Torraco and Winstanley v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Their situation was very similar to your question. In the above post "DocRock" appears to be referring to the "Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA)" which purports to offer travelers protection from state laws while engaged in interstate travel.

Torraco and Winstanley sued the Port Authority for damages when they were arrested or delayed in travel in violation of the FOPA. The Second Circuit held that the FOPA did not provide any basis for a civil lawsuit that would allow them to recover damages.

 

[edwardware]

How does one handle such a situation?

By not reclaiming your bags.

Reclaim your bag at home; if it's late because because someone expected you to claim it at BWI or JFK, it'll show up eventually.

In the past 10 years, every time I've checked a firearm, they slap a Special Handling tag on, and the bag lands at the claim office instead of the carousel. Don't pick it up, and fly on in the morning.

 

[BreechFace]

All of your responses I will take I to consideration, and look into those court rulings. I know that I can refuse the parcel with the firearm in it, but then I’m counting on baggage claim to handle it well.

this should be a clear allowance under the FOPA just as if someone was passing through a state only stopping for gas or to eat. I would hope that any judge would easily see a persons scenario and recognize there was no intent in breaking that state or regions law.

I’ll have to look into writing my senator and seeing if there can further distinguish the FOPA to include such a matter as this and clear up any issue a local authority might have on the matter.

Thank you gentlemen for you thoughts it’s something that I’ve always been concerned with as it is quite often that I can be rerouted through Chicago for weather of mechanical reasoning.

 

[edwardware]

. . . this should be a clear allowance under the FOPA

It is clear.

So is the 2nd Amendment, and we all know how that's going, especially in the states you're thinking about.

 

[Alex Clayton]

Sadly this comes up every so often. The "best answer" is the one already given. DO NOT take the bag back from the airline. Risk to you? Do it this way the gun may get lost. Sucks. Take the bag back from the airline? I do not think I need to tell you what you risk. So is the price of the gun worth the HUGE legal hassle and expense instead? I know which risk I would take in a heart beat.
As for asking law makers to help? This sadly is proven to be a huge waste of time. Law makers already spoke on this. As with all laws they mean nothing. Some black robe can tell you the law means anything they want it to mean. It stays this way until a black robe higher than them changes it. So for the cost of a gun do you want to put yourself in the middle of this? Remember the black robes have NOTHING to lose. They can make your life miserable and they still get paid every month no matter what. You on the other hand will have to pay out of pocket to fight them. So again price of gun that "may" get lost, vs possible HUGE legal hassle and expense? Travel with a gun you can afford to lose.

 

[BreechFace]

There should be a stripping of a judges position and a reimbursement of time and expenses for the defendant when a law which is clearly written and clearly superseded by the sitting judge.

Maybe that is what I’ll be writing my state representatives about. This country is lost if we have arrived at the above conclusion that we cannot follow laws and maintain our freedom from arrest or litigation.

Don’t read my post like I’m bashing any of you all above it’s just my frustration with scenarios like this where the answer is that laws/freedoms on the books don’t mean anything.

I don’t pretend to think what was suggested above as the outcome is not what will happen. Just disgusted that America has come to the point of being ran by activist judges that can push their own agenda with no recourse for themselves or recompense to the accused.

 

[Alex Clayton]

There should be a stripping of a judges position and a reimbursement of time and expenses for the defendant when a law which is clearly written and clearly superseded by the sitting judge.

Maybe that is what I’ll be writing my state representatives about. This country is lost if we have arrived at the above conclusion that we cannot follow laws and maintain our freedom from arrest or litigation.

Don’t read my post like I’m bashing any of you all above it’s just my frustration with scenarios like this where the answer is that laws/freedoms on the books don’t mean anything.

I don’t pretend to think what was suggested above as the outcome is not what will happen. Just disgusted that America has come to the point of being ran by activist judges that can push their own agenda with no recourse for themselves or recompense to the accused.

Sadly it is a mess at times but, this is what the voters have said they wanted. Only way this will change is when / if a lot of voters decide they are tired of the way this is done.

 

[Cannibul]

There should be a stripping of a judges position and a reimbursement of time and expenses for the defendant when a law which is clearly written and clearly superseded by the sitting judge.

Maybe that is what I’ll be writing my state representatives about. This country is lost if we have arrived at the above conclusion that we cannot follow laws and maintain our freedom from arrest or litigation.

Don’t read my post like I’m bashing any of you all above it’s just my frustration with scenarios like this where the answer is that laws/freedoms on the books don’t mean anything.

I don’t pretend to think what was suggested above as the outcome is not what will happen. Just disgusted that America has come to the point of being ran by activist judges that can push their own agenda with no recourse for themselves or recompense to the accused.

Oath breakers should be tarred and feathered....the first time.

 

[DocRock]

My best recommendation is that you do not accept custody of any bag back from the airline that contains a firearm.

Please refer to the Second Circuit's decision in the consolidated case of Torraco and Winstanley v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Their situation was very similar to your question. In the above post "DocRock" appears to be referring to the "Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA)" which purports to offer travelers protection from state laws while engaged in interstate travel.

Torraco and Winstanley sued the Port Authority for damages when they were arrested or delayed in travel in violation of the FOPA. The Second Circuit held that the FOPA did not provide any basis for a civil lawsuit that would allow them to recover damages.

Yes, I should have specifically referenced FOPA.

Below is a copy of the response by the Justice Dept to Rep. Don Young after his expressions of concern about the failure of NY police agencies to respect FOPA. And it highlights the reason why refusing to take custody of a checked bag with a firearm from an airline during an interrupted journey is so important. If one looks at the strict interpretation of FOPA’s provisions stipulated by the Bush II Justice Dept, one can see that taking one’s bag back with a firearm in it and heading to a hotel overnight opens the seems in FOPA for prejudicial interpretation by state and local law enforcement.

https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1509107/don-young-nyc-fopa.pdf

 

[denton]

My answer is that if your travel takes you through NY or NJ, don't put a firearm in your luggage. FedEx it from yourself at home to yourself at your destination.

 

[daniel craig]

Other than the suggestions listed here, you could drive or ship it to your location ahead of time and get the shipment insured.

 

[hso]

would hope that any judge would easily see a persons scenario and recognize there was no intent in breaking that state or regions law.

That hasn't always been the case. You may want to ask your airline if they can make provisions for this.

 

[Elkins45]

I don’t know what you should do. I do know what I would do.

I wouldn’t ever lay a hand on my bag if it ends up on the carousel. I would march up to the baggage desk for my airline and tell them they need to remove my bag from the carousel and place it back into the system whenever my journey continues. One assumes that baggage personnel in commie states like NJ have seen this circumstance hundreds of times.

Even if this means my gun gets lost and I have to file a claim I figure it’s the cheapest option, and the one that won’t cost me years of freedom.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

SERIOUSLY....SCRATCH CHICAGO OFF YOUR "WORRY" LIST! Even in the darkest days of pre-Heller/MacDonald, Chi Town ALWAYS HAD A STATUTORY LOCAL EXEMPTION for persons traveling through or on a layover provided the weapons were cased and unloaded---EVEN IF they were prohibited under Chicago city ordinances, provided they were lawful in your home residence (assuming Title 1 and not NFA). It isn't NYC or NJ....And you can lawfully have a CCW in your vehicle on your home state's permit if driving in the city/IL. You may NOT however 'walk around' with the weapon except if it is in a bag or case and unloaded. And in IL, EVERYWHERE, unloaded means no rounds in the weapon, but loaded mags / speedloaders are A OK....even in the same bag/case as the weapon.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

And while Chi has an AWB...and limits mags to 15 rounds....again, you can fly in and out of Ohare/Midway with an AR or anything else still Title 1. I have close pals who have done this with regularity for decades.

 

[Cannibul]

My answer is that if your travel takes you through NY or NJ, don't put a firearm in your luggage. FedEx it from yourself at home to yourself at your destination.

Your travel doesn't have to take you there. Your flight could be diverted for any number of reasons.

 

[Nature Boy]

......given the situation the airlines wants to uncheck my luggage to me.....

In my experience that won't happen. That doubles the labor for them. As a very frequent flyer, (I have over 1.5 million miles with American Airlines alone), anytime I've been held over in route to my destination the airlines have NEVER allowed me to claim my checked luggage. It always stays in their control until I reached my final destination.

 

[Rule3]

If one worrys so much about this. Make you "travel" gun a cheap on. Say used SW 642, a Ruger LCP or what ever. Check that in a separate bag you personal items in another. If you have a lay over and need to stay a nigh you can claim you person stuff bag and the airline can keep the other. Even if lost or stolen its not a major expense.

Or heaven forbid, just don't bring a gun! How many millions of people travel without one????

 

[BreechFace]

Your travel doesn't have to take you there. Your flight could be diverted for any number of reasons.

Exactly. I’m speaking of a situation out of my scheduled control.

 

[BreechFace]

Or heaven forbid, just don't bring a gun! How many millions of people travel without one????

Not in today’s world, I’ll carry wherever I can. Just had business up in North Dakota and in a town of 3,000 people they just had a cop get shot.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...taking one’s bag back with a firearm in it and heading to a hotel overnight opens the seems in FOPA for prejudicial interpretation by state and local law enforcement.....

And in fact the 3rd Circuit has ruled that doing so is outside the protection of the transportation provision of the FOPA (18 USC 926A):

• Revell v. Port Auth. of New York, 598 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2010), at 598:

  ... Revell attempts to invoke the protection of the statute by alleging that "[d]uring the transportation of the firearm, neither the firearm nor the ammunition were readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the aircraft or the bus [that he took to the hotel]." (App. at 25.) But only the most strained reading of the statute could lead to the conclusion that having the firearm and ammunition inaccessible while in a vehicle means that, during the owner's travels, they can be freely accessible for hours at a time as long as they are not in a vehicle. The complaint reveals that Revell's luggage containing the firearm was, in fact, available to him while he was at the hotel. He alleged that, "[a]fter retrieving his bag, because there were no more connections to Allentown until 9:45 a.m. the following morning..., [he] went directly to, and stayed the night at, the Airport Sheraton Hotel." (App. at 23.) He further alleged that he returned with his luggage directly to the airport the next day and that a TSA agent, after x-raying the luggage, opened it with a key that Revell gave him. Taking those facts as true, it is clear that the gun and ammunition were readily accessible to Revell during his stay in New Jersey and, thus, by the allegations of his own complaint, he was not within the scope of § 926A.....

  
  
• Ass'n of N.J. Rifle v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 730 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2013), at 254-255:

  ... Although the unwieldy sentence that comprises section 926A is drafted in a roundabout way, on a careful reading its language is clear and unambiguous. It begins by establishing a clear positive entitlement: a person who meets its requirements “shall be entitled” to transport firearms in certain circumstances. Cf. Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 287, 122 S.Ct. 2268 (contrasting the rights-creating language of “no person ... shall be ... subjected” with language typical of spending clause statutes, e.g., “no funds shall be made available.”). But the part of the sentence that immediately follows expressly conditions this entitlement as only being operative “ 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 926A (emphasis supplied).
  
  It is plain from the latter condition that the statute protects only transportation of a firearm in a vehicle, and requires that the firearm and ammunition be neither readily nor directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such vehicle. In particular, the word “such,” in “such transporting vehicle,” by definition refers back to earlier part(s) of the sentence, and the only parts it could possibly refer to are the parts referring to the transportation of a firearm or ammunition. The use of “such” therefore makes clear that the transportation the statute protects must occur in a “transporting vehicle.”...

...I would hope that any judge would easily see a persons scenario and recognize there was no intent in breaking that state or regions law.....

...when a law which is clearly written ...

But see Revell v. Port Auth. of New York, 598 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2010) and Ass'n of N.J. Rifle v. Port Auth. of N.Y., 730 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. 2013), addressed above.

The 3rd Circuit concluded that the statute (18 USC 926A) was (1) clear; and (2) clearly did not provide protection when the bag containing the gun is removed from the airport and taken to a hotel overnight.

 

[alsaqr]

By not reclaiming your bags.

^^^^This

If you find your flight diverted to La Guardia, Newark or JFK don't claim your baggage.