Moving across Country, a bit

[Sav .250]

Transporting weapons thru different states,especially the way Federal and State laws are today, is not one I`d leave up to opinions to rely on.

But who knows ,if you don`t get stopped for anything....you should be good to go.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I am with Sam1911. A trip through Utah (lived there before in grad school) would be worth it just for the fun of seeing the scenery. The real question is what route and do I avoid I-15.

I think it would be more challenging in the north part, but I would have off at Spanish fork on 6 then down 191. Dependent on the weather and traffic, back to 24/95 or follow 191.

Still I would NOT do any side trips, National Parks, or other none direct travel. Just stay on the road, set the cruise at the speed limit or below and enjoy the ride.

 

[Zeeemu]

"... but the fact that you have to stop for the night is a reasonable part of travel from one place to another and doesn't negate your FOPA protection on its face."

Thanks, that's good to know. I hope I never have a need to test it. However, a little paranoia can be a life saver. After all, the open road still contains elements of the jungle. Not the kind filled with dense vegetation and life threatening hardships along the way but a jungle nevertheless, frequently patrolled by legally sanctioned predators of the state, some quite eager to pounce.

 

[BobTheTomato]

As I see it this is probably the best way to look at it. Is traveling with them legal? Yes. Will that stop some nut bag in CA from throwing you in jail in CA? No. Will it stop you from needing to hire a lawyer and spend time and money in court to get your property back? No. Unless there is a law in place allowing you to sue from triple damages I would avoid CA.

 

[splattergun]

FWIW, the weather here in Utah and most of the Intermountain west has ben abnormally warm this January. Travel through most of Idaho and Utah should be a breeze for the next 10 days.

 

[david58]

Semantics, the bane of internet conversation.

Will travel via ID, UT, let the weather dictate the roads I take.

 

[Red Wind]

^Good move! Stay safe.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The travel provisions of FOPA have been continuously upheld as a barrier to prosecution but not a barrier to arrest. The burden of local police to know the law in 2 other jurisdictions has been held to be an excessive burden.

Best to avoid CA.

Mike

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

I live in Albuquerque, NM. You don't say where you are in Oregon. I've driven all over the Western US for over 40 years including Oregon. You tell me where you are, and I will tell you the best route to New Mexico.

California is a PITA once you get down past Sacramento. Yes, you can take I-5 to CA-58, and then through Bakersfield to Barstow and get on I-40 and avoid most of the mountains.

BUT, it is a huge climb out of Needles, CA (elevation 495) to Kingman (elevation 3,333). Look at the map and see how far it is from Needles to Kingman - it's uphill all the way. I've pulled a boat from Lake Havasu City to Kingman and then to Albuquerque, and depending upon your truck, it's a workout. So, while you've avoided the mountains - you'll still be going uphill for a long, long time.

The worst weather you will find on I-40 is in Flagstaff, AZ. I have been in 4WD on a number of occasions to get through Flagstaff on I-40 at this time of year. It will either be sunny...or snowy.

So, if I were you - I'd look for the shortest way through the mountains in Oregon and then go down through Nevada. The driving in Nevada is relatively easy. The roads are routed down the valleys between the small mountain ranges. There is relatively light traffic, you can see forever and the weather is sunny about 90% of the time.

You can get on I-40 south of Las Vegas (take 93 to Kingman) and avoid the climb from Needles to Kingman on I-40.

 

[david58]

Probably going to route it with stops in Ontario, SLC, Durango, then on to Los Alamos. With decent weather, that's the shortest way. Dicey weather dictates route changes, but cannot decide on that till it gets closer.

CA would be nice, our rig is fine for a climb as long as I don't care about mpg, but the potential of issues in CA make the easy route the worst one. Plus my CCWs in Oregon and Utah work for me till I leave Utah, and CO and NM aren't a problem with the guns in the box in the back (with the lid screwed on) and the ammo in the small Uhaul.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Here it is straight from the CA DOJ.

HANDGUNS

California Penal Code section 25610 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not lawfully prohibited from firearm possession, and who resides or is temporarily in California, from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person provided the firearm is unloaded and stored in a locked container.

The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code sections 16850.

SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES

Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 25400 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. However, as with any firearm, nonconcealable firearms must be unloaded while they are being transported. A rifle or shotgun that is defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Penal Code sections 30510, 30515, or 30520 must be transported in accordance with Penal Code sections 16850, 25610, and 30945, subdivision (g).

REGISTERED ASSAULT WEAPONS

California Penal Code section 30945 provides that registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations and must be unloaded and stored in a locked container when transported.

The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code section 16850, 25610, and 30945, subdivision (g).

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

The only question I would have with assault weapons is registered by who? ATF? CA? Give them a call or email them and inform them of your travel. Also note that their written response may be used to validate your possession and travel.

I'm going through CA cause my tax dollars maintain their freeways. I paid to travel the interstate.

 

[danez71]

Interesting. This is written as if FOPA doesn't exist.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30600-30675

30665. Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to the
possession and importation of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle
into this state by a nonresident if all of the following conditions
are met:
(a) The person is attending or going directly to or coming
directly from an organized competitive match or league competition
that involves the use of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle.
(b) The competition or match is conducted on the premises of one
of the following:
(1) A target range that holds a regulatory or business license for
the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(2) A target range of a public or private club or organization
that is organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.
(c) The match or competition is sponsored by, conducted under the
auspices of, or approved by, a law enforcement agency or a nationally
or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes
education about, firearms.
(d) The assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is transported in
accordance with Section 25610 or Article 3 (commencing with Section
25505) of Chapter 2 of Division 5.
(e) The person is 18 years of age or over and is not in a class of
persons prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section
29900) of Division 9 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

 

[CoalTrain49]

States, counties and cities write many laws that won't hold up to close scrutiny by a court when examined against the state constitution, US constitution or the federal law.

Legislators are idiots for the most part.

 

[tepin]

I would like to see a traveler explain the FOPA to a CA cop. Probably wouldn't go well. Regarding the FOPA... We supposedly gained safe passage but lost the right to buy machine guns. dumb.

 

[Sam1911]

Regarding the FOPA... We supposedly gained safe passage but lost the right to buy machine guns. dumb.

We gained a lot more than that. And the safe passage provision alone -- even though not a perfect shield, as we see -- is very important.


The Hughes Amendment was really a poison pill. Whether the law was worth it on the balance is tough to say, but a LOT (nearly all) of gun owners benefit from the rest of FOPA all the time, whereas the machine gun fans (even now, but certainly then) make up a very small subset of gun owners. Was it "dumb?" Well... that's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[david58]

FOPA or no, I think I will skip California. ID, NV, UT, AZ, NM all sound better. My CCL isn't recognized in NM, but I can put my pistol in the console and be legal. Can't even have unlocked ammo in CA if I have the pistol, AND it has to be locked up.

Don't even want to think about what they'd think of the AR. And all the 30rd mags.

So….a more scenic tour. And, if the weather goes sour, we'll just wait it out. Better than hiring a lawyer.

David