Interstate Transportation

[canav844]

Does 18 USC § 926A also cover magazines if traveling through and not stopping within a state with an AWB?

 

[shadohman]

The Volokh Conspiracy » The Limits of the Federal Law Letting You Travel With a Locked, Unloaded Gun

Interesting analysis of Torraco v. Port of Authority of N.Y. & N.J.

The Quote from this decision on page 12 says legal or not you could be arrested at least in the state of New York.

08-1768-cv; 08-1895-cv
Torraco v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey; Weasner v. Suffolk County, New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

”In authorizing interstate transport of firearms “for any lawful purpose from any
place where [a traveler] may lawfully possess and carry such firearm,
[Section926A] offers no standard by which an officer can determine whether
the interstate transport is lawful. It would require a local officer, faced with
clear evidence of a gun carried in violation under local law, to know the law of all 50 states and their
localities to evaluate whether firearms possession in the departure and destination
states is lawful and thus preempts local law, an unworkable requirement."

Yes I know this case was about flying with firearms and not specifically about magazine capacity.

Traveler beware.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That decision is **** and makes no sense at all considering the entire ****ing purpose of the '86 FOPA.

The local guy has no AUTHORITY to decide whether something is legal in his state or not. State and local police do not and cannot enforce federal laws, in this case federal law protects an interstate traveler from local laws.

The letter and spirit of the law are clear IMO but hey, what do I know, I was illegally thrown off public property in clear violation of state law so the caveat of ignorant LEOs remains.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That decision is **** and makes no sense at all considering the entire ****ing purpose of the '86 FOPA.

The local guy has no AUTHORITY to decide whether something is legal in his state or not. State and local police do not and cannot enforce federal laws, in this case federal law protects an interstate traveler from local laws.

The letter and spirit of the law are clear IMO but hey, what do I know, I was illegally thrown off public property in clear violation of state law so the caveat of ignorant LEOs remains.

While I agree the spirit of the law is clear. And quite possibly the letter as well which would be a miracle for fed law. I can understand this decision.

For the interstate transport law to apply, it has to be legal at the beginning and end of the journey. Let's assume that IL passes an "assault weapon ban" and you are driving your car from IN to CA and you have a semi-auto ar-15 complete with pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, bayonet lug etc. It would be legal in IN but not in CA(assuming it does not have a "bullet button"). So the interstate transport law would not apply. What the decision says is that police are not required to know all the state laws regarding firearms.

They are not enforcing fed law, they just don't know if the exclusion provided by it applies.

And regarding local guy deciding if it's legal in his state or not, look at OH for instance. What they consider a loaded firearm is not what any other state that I know of considers one. A loaded magazine/speed loader that fits any firearm in the vehicle is considered a loaded firearm. They consider it under state law to be a loaded firearm so the interstate transport law does not apply even if you were just traveling through between IN and FL.

And I have a question, how do muzzle loaders work under this? Per fed law they are not firearms, under some state laws they are. If you were traveling through NY which does consider them firearms would the interstate transport law apply?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

While I agree the spirit of the law is clear. And quite possibly the letter as well which would be a miracle for fed law. I can understand this decision.

For the interstate transport law to apply, it has to be legal at the beginning and end of the journey. Let's assume that IL passes an "assault weapon ban" and you are driving your car from IN to CA and you have a semi-auto ar-15 complete with pistol grip, barrel shroud, flash hider, bayonet lug etc. It would be legal in IN but not in CA(assuming it does not have a "bullet button"). So the interstate transport law would not apply. What the decision says is that police are not required to know all the state laws regarding firearms.

They are not enforcing fed law, they just don't know if the exclusion provided by it applies.

And regarding local guy deciding if it's legal in his state or not, look at OH for instance. What they consider a loaded firearm is not what any other state that I know of considers one. A loaded magazine/speed loader that fits any firearm in the vehicle is considered a loaded firearm. They consider it under state law to be a loaded firearm so the interstate transport law does not apply even if you were just traveling through between IN and FL.

And I have a question, how do muzzle loaders work under this? Per fed law they are not firearms, under some state laws they are. If you were traveling through NY which does consider them firearms would the interstate transport law apply?

FOPA nullifies state laws for interstate travelers as long as they meet the criteria. You can transport machine guns and silencers, both felonies in Illinois, to Missouri or any other state thye are legal in and Illinois can't (legally) do jack about it.

This is actually one federal law I agree aith and does NOT violate the "Intersate Commerce Clause" of the Constitution. Since you are traveling interstate- you fall under federal law regardless of what the particular state says.

The problem with that is there are certainly state and even federal judges that do not like to have their hands tied in this manner and have a need to enforce their opinions on the populace.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

FOPA nullifies state laws for interstate travelers as long as they meet the criteria. You can transport machine guns and silencers, both felonies in Illinois, to Missouri or any other state thye are legal in and Illinois can't (legally) do jack about it.

I'm not debating that point. What the ruling says is that LEO don't and don't have to know all the various state laws regarding them. The aforementioned scenario involving the ar-15 would not fall under FOPA because it wouldn't be legal in CA. Unless it had a bullet button. Would the average LEO in IL know that?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I'm not debating that point. What the ruling says is that LEO don't and don't have to know all the various state laws regarding them. The aforementioned scenario involving the ar-15 would not fall under FOPA because it wouldn't be legal in CA. Unless it had a bullet button. Would the average LEO in IL know that?

No, and he doesn't HAVE to. It could very well BE illegal just like you can lie about traveling to a different state.

The point is by traveling interstate and abiding by FOPA you take away local (state) authority to set firearm laws.

It is very similar to Indiana's preemption, there can be local municipalities with their own ordinances but they are unenforceable because state law overrides them. Yet in spite of this some places still try to enforce them illegally so there is no guarantee.

There are infinite variables to the scenario: multiple stops, gunsmithing in a different state (adding a bullet button perhaps).

 

[shadohman]

While I agree the spirit of the law is clear. And quite possibly the letter as well which would be a miracle for fed law. I can understand this decision.


They are not enforcing fed law, they just don't know if the exclusion provided by it applies.

Are you agreeing that it is OK to arrest some one when a LEO has no idea if they have broken any laws?

Guilty until proven innocent, this is becoming the new law of the land.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, and he doesn't HAVE to. It could very well BE illegal just like you can lie about traveling to a different state.

The point is by traveling interstate and abiding by FOPA you take away local (state) authority to set firearm laws.

You state that it could be illegal but are arguing that it shouldn't matter. Yes a person could lie about traveling to a different state, if they do lie the protections under FOPA wouldn't cover them.

Look at IN handgun laws, it's illegal to carry a handgun unless you are exempted you have to prove you are exempt from it. Either by showing a LTCH or equivalent or by showing a different exemption. FOPA is an exemption of local laws, it's up to the person to prove they are exempt.

Are you agreeing that it is OK to arrest some one when a LEO has no idea if they have broken any laws?

Guilty until proven innocent, this is becoming the new law of the land.

Nope I'm not agreeing with that at all. I'm stating that the decision makes sense in a way.

See above for a comparison to IN handgun law.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You state that it could be illegal but are arguing that it shouldn't matter. Yes a person could lie about traveling to a different state, if they do lie the protections under FOPA wouldn't cover them.

Look at IN handgun laws, it's illegal to carry a handgun unless you are exempted you have to prove you are exempt from it. Either by showing a LTCH or equivalent or by showing a different exemption. FOPA is an exemption of local laws, it's up to the person to prove they are exempt.

So what is your point? You think a local cop can charge someone carrying under FOPA with a state crime if the gun is illegal locally?

 

[JettaKnight]

Does 18 USC § 926A also cover magazines if traveling through and not stopping within a state with an AWB?

Although I can't cite a confirmation of this, I firmly believe the answer is "yes", and to you followup question about bullets - "yes", too.

I would state that the firearm and magazines are part and parcel items covered under the FOPA.

Seeing that NJ all but disregards FOPA, the magazine doesn't much matter...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So what is your point? You think a local cop can charge someone carrying under FOPA with a state crime if the gun is illegal locally?

My point is that I can understand the reasoning behind this decision. And per case law yes a local cop can arrest and a prosecutor can charge someone. It is an affirmative defense that you were covered under the FOPA. Similar to presenting a LTCH in Indiana.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

My point is that I can understand the reasoning behind this decision. And per case law yes a local cop can arrest and a prosecutor can charge someone. It is an affirmative defense that you were covered under the FOPA. Similar to presenting a LTCH in Indiana.

In reality the feds should come down HARD on a local cop that does that- practically you would be lucky to get out of jail and charges thrown out so I see your point as well.

In the end, keep it in your trunk and don't say anything = no problems.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In the end, keep it in your trunk and don't say anything = no problems.

I can definitely agree with that.