Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Traveling with Pistol Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    I just want to get a full understanding of traveling out of the State of Connecticut, example I am traveling to Pensylvania which brings me across State Lines, New York, and New Jersey, I am aware that these States do not Honor CT's permit, but I am able to have my Pistol Locked unloaded in my trunk or appropriate locked container with the ammo seperate for the purpose of the trip untilI arrive in an area which Honors my permit?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Yes, under Federal Law that preempts all state law. Unloaded, out of easy reach and traveling from and to states whichin lawfully you're entitled to possess the firearm . I've traveled thru MA, NY, IL and other anti-gun states with no concern whatsoever. Of course, as soon as I'm in a state my CCW covers, I slam the mag back in! :celebrate
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  3. #3
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC926A

    This is the U.S. Code that is meant to keep you legal while transporting a firearm interstate. I have heard however the Jersey cops will still conficate a weapon if found. Just don't do anything that will get you pulled over and you should be fine.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Unloaded, out of easy reach and traveling from and to states whichin lawfully you're entitled to possess the firearm .
    Really? That is the rule of law annpounced in 18 USC 926A? I don't think so.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Unloaded, out of easy reach and traveling from and to states whichin lawfully you're entitled to possess the firearm .
    Really? That is the rule of law annpounced in 18 USC 926A? I don't think so.
    "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."



    Not sure what your comment means, but that is precisely the rule of law I stated.

    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...ite:+18USC926A

    This is the U.S. Code that is meant to keep you legal while transporting a firearm interstate. I have heard however the Jersey cops will still conficate a weapon if found. Just don't do anything that will get you pulled over and you should be fine.
    With probable cause, they can get a search warrant. Incedental to a felony stop, they can search your car without one. If they have nothing to charge you with in the first instance, they cannot take the gun. In the second, however, they can and could even if you had the appropriate CCW. Simple course: don't let them search without a warrant--EVER, and/or don't commit a felony in Jersey!
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Yes, under Federal Law that preempts all state law. Unloaded, out of easy reach and traveling from and to states whichin lawfully you're entitled to possess the firearm . I've traveled thru MA, NY, IL and other anti-gun states with no concern whatsoever. Of course, as soon as I'm in a state my CCW covers, I slam the mag back in! :celebrate
    The problem is you simply state "Unloaded, out of easy reach" and do not include the part about "or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:"

    This important information, if unknown to the OP, could be the difference between being a criminal and being a law abiding citizen.

    Case in point: Based on the information in your original post above, if I put my unloaded firearmunder a 250 lb box of books in the back seat, it would be "unloaded, out of easy reach" but would not meet the U.S. Code's requirement of "not directly assessible from the passenger compartment" portion.

    So it's not that your information was wrong, it was just incomplete to the point of being dangerous to person needing the complete infromation.


    Sec. 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.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    Okay I got it now, I was planning on Installing a Biometric Safe screwed down in my trunk, and when using also putting a lock on the unloaded pistol and seperate the ammo. This should serve the purpose and I will of course not break any Laws in Jersey. Thanks

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily accessible" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."



    corrected spelling for nitpickers
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily assessable" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."

    Nowhere does the Code use the term "readily assessable". That would mean you could quickly place an accurate monetary value on the firearm.

    It doesn't even use the term "readily accessible"which would indicate that you could get to it easily.

    The exact terminology is "directly accessible". This means that it can be accessed from the passenger compartment. It does not mean that you could get to it quickly, it only means that you can actually get to it.

    You must have studied law without studying English. Maybe that's the reason why the JD didn't translate into "passed the bar". The actual language used in the law is extremely important as the choice to useone particular word over another can change the meaning of an entire section of the law.

    Misreading a section can cause someone to misunderstand the section of the law, and inadvertantly commit a criminal action.

    This is why I try not to tell anyone how to comply with the law. I point them to the applicable section of the law and let them read it for themselves. If I were to tell someone how to comply with the law, I wouldn't "paraphrase" it without actually attaching a link to the section of law, and letting them know that anything I tell them is only my opinion, and to read the law for themselves.

    You alsostatedyou "paraphrased the statute and then quoted it in it's entirity". You paraphrased it inaccurately in your first post, and then only qouted it in it's entirity after you were called on the inaccuracy of your paraphrasing, so don't try to make it sound like you gave a brief synopsis with attached references.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily assessable" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."

    Nowhere does the Code use the term "readily assessable". That would mean you could quickly place an accurate monetary value on the firearm.

    It doesn't even use the term "readily accessible"which would indicate that you could get to it easily.

    The exact terminology is "directly accessible". This means that it can be accessed from the passenger compartment. It does not mean that you could get to it quickly, it only means that you can actually get to it.

    You must have studied law without studying English. Maybe that's the reason why the JD didn't translate into "passed the bar". The actual language used in the law is extremely important as the choice to useone particular word over another can change the meaning of an entire section of the law.

    Misreading a section can cause someone to misunderstand the section of the law, and inadvertantly commit a criminal action.

    This is why I try not to tell anyone how to comply with the law. I point them to the applicable section of the law and let them read it for themselves. If I were to tell someone how to comply with the law, I wouldn't "paraphrase" it without actually attaching a link to the section of law, and letting them know that anything I tell them is only my opinion, and to read the law for themselves.

    You alsostatedyou "paraphrased the statute and then quoted it in it's entirity". You paraphrased it inaccurately in your first post, and then only qouted it in it's entirity after you were called on the inaccuracy of your paraphrasing, so don't try to make it sound like you gave a brief synopsis with attached references.
    Maybe you better read it again--or learn how to read in the first place. It CLEARLY uses: "and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible " which I clearly posted. But I was too quick to type and did so incorrectly, but not on the cut and paste statute. I guess that was too complicated for you to figure out. What's your excuse? I can spell "entirety"; you can't. And the link to the law was CLEARLY posted by another person, so I didn't feel the need. Again, you're reading skill leaves a lot to be desired.

    I don't practice law because the USAF doesn't like their Program Managers doing so, not because I haven't passed the bar. But then, that's none of your business, is it?

    Your post is nothing more than a personal attack, as you evidently can't spell as well as can't read, it labels you as someone I won't waste my time debating. Figures, you're from kalifornia--a bastion of individual liberties--and various halfwits. Learn to read and spell, and we'll talk again.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily assessable" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."

    Nowhere does the Code use the term "readily assessable". That would mean you could quickly place an accurate monetary value on the firearm.

    It doesn't even use the term "readily accessible"which would indicate that you could get to it easily.

    The exact terminology is "directly accessible". This means that it can be accessed from the passenger compartment. It does not mean that you could get to it quickly, it only means that you can actually get to it.

    You must have studied law without studying English. Maybe that's the reason why the JD didn't translate into "passed the bar". The actual language used in the law is extremely important as the choice to useone particular word over another can change the meaning of an entire section of the law.

    Misreading a section can cause someone to misunderstand the section of the law, and inadvertantly commit a criminal action.

    This is why I try not to tell anyone how to comply with the law. I point them to the applicable section of the law and let them read it for themselves. If I were to tell someone how to comply with the law, I wouldn't "paraphrase" it without actually attaching a link to the section of law, and letting them know that anything I tell them is only my opinion, and to read the law for themselves.

    You alsostatedyou "paraphrased the statute and then quoted it in it's entirity". You paraphrased it inaccurately in your first post, and then only qouted it in it's entirity after you were called on the inaccuracy of your paraphrasing, so don't try to make it sound like you gave a brief synopsis with attached references.
    Maybe you better read it again--or learn how to read in the first place. It CLEARLY uses: "and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible " which I clearly posted. But I was too quick to type and did so incorrectly, but not on the cut and paste statute. I guess that was too complicated for you to figure out. What's your excuse? I can spell "entirety"; you can't.

    I don't practice law because the USAF doesn't like their Program Managers doing so, not because I haven't passed the bar. But then, that's none of your business, is it?

    Your post is nothing more than a personal attack, as you evidently can't spell as well as can't read, it labels you as someone I won't waste my time debating. Figures, you're from kalifornia--a bastion of individual liberties--and various halfwits. Learn to read and spell, and we'll talk again.
    I apologize. It does use the term "readily accessible", it however goes on to state: , or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment...

    The directly accessible portion trumps the readily accessible portion, again focusing in on the ommision of critical information.

    I read very well, and I occasionally make minor errors while typing. My minor errors however do not change the total meaning of the sentences that I type.

    And again, I reiterate, my first response to the OP was toprovide the link to the actual source of information. I didn't water it down and weaken it's meaning by paraphrasing it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily assessable" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."

    Nowhere does the Code use the term "readily assessable". That would mean you could quickly place an accurate monetary value on the firearm.

    It doesn't even use the term "readily accessible"which would indicate that you could get to it easily.

    The exact terminology is "directly accessible". This means that it can be accessed from the passenger compartment. It does not mean that you could get to it quickly, it only means that you can actually get to it.

    You must have studied law without studying English. Maybe that's the reason why the JD didn't translate into "passed the bar". The actual language used in the law is extremely important as the choice to useone particular word over another can change the meaning of an entire section of the law.

    Misreading a section can cause someone to misunderstand the section of the law, and inadvertantly commit a criminal action.

    This is why I try not to tell anyone how to comply with the law. I point them to the applicable section of the law and let them read it for themselves. If I were to tell someone how to comply with the law, I wouldn't "paraphrase" it without actually attaching a link to the section of law, and letting them know that anything I tell them is only my opinion, and to read the law for themselves.

    You alsostatedyou "paraphrased the statute and then quoted it in it's entirity". You paraphrased it inaccurately in your first post, and then only qouted it in it's entirity after you were called on the inaccuracy of your paraphrasing, so don't try to make it sound like you gave a brief synopsis with attached references.
    Maybe you better read it again--or learn how to read in the first place. It CLEARLY uses: "and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible " which I clearly posted. But I was too quick to type and did so incorrectly, but not on the cut and paste statute. I guess that was too complicated for you to figure out. What's your excuse? I can spell "entirety"; you can't.

    I don't practice law because the USAF doesn't like their Program Managers doing so, not because I haven't passed the bar. But then, that's none of your business, is it?

    Your post is nothing more than a personal attack, as you evidently can't spell as well as can't read, it labels you as someone I won't waste my time debating. Figures, you're from kalifornia--a bastion of individual liberties--and various halfwits. Learn to read and spell, and we'll talk again.
    I pointed out specific errors, and how the post was erroneous due to ommision of criticalinformation.

    I then point out how his misqouting the statute (readily vs. directly)completely changes the meaning of the statute.

    And because of that he labels me the halfwit? Who is on the personal attack now?

    I read very well, and I occasionally make minor errors while typing. My minor errors however do not change the total meaning of the sentences that I type.
    If you include yourself in my "halfwit" remark, that's your privilege. I have used 'assessable' several times today, in other correspondence, and admit to not proofing my posting as well as I should have. But I doubt anyone on this forum mistook the post, in its 'entirity,' (sic), to use your term. And I believe the OP's question was more than adequately answered. As I said, this is off topic and serves no purpose, and thusly, is not worth my time.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    LMAO, Thanks guys for the assistance. This is like reading about the Presidential Debates without anyone being elected in the end.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily assessable" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."
    Your just wrong - people are convicted all the time for having a handgun "out of easy reach" but inside a vehicle compartment - it violates many states' laws and FOPA is not going to trump that. FOPA is not an out of easy reach standard, and you advising people of such not helpful.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    I have heard however the Jersey cops will still confiscate a weapon if found. Just don't do anything that will get you pulled over and you should be fine.
    Yes for some reason Jersey is really bad when it comes to guns.Here's just one story on how bad NJ can be: http://www.anjrpc.org/fopalawsuit.htm:shock:

    One thing I've seen recommended is to print out each state's statutes about transporting guns through their state for each state you plan on passing through along with the federal statutes; and to carry them with you in case your pulled over and the police start giving you grief for transporting a gun. And to show the relevant information to the police if they question you about the guns. And to store the gun pursuant to the Federal guidelines for interstate transport. Which basically means to store the gun unloaded in a case in the trunk of a car. If no trunk is present than in a "locked container other than the vehicle's glove compartment or console".

  17. #17
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    You're quibbling. "Out of easy reach" or "readily assessable" have similar meanings and I paraphrased the statute, then quoted it in it's entirety. An unloaded weapon, out of easy reach of the driver, would constitute a defense under the common law doctrine of "reasonable man" and lex vulgate. No state prosecutor is going to take a case that will be tossed via a Federal safeguard unless he has a made case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quibbling words, aren't. This isn't a legal forum, and few here are lawyers, although some (like me) may haveJDs.) If you want to be lawyer liability cute, let me add "always seek--and consequently pay for, competent legal advise."
    Your just wrong - people are convicted all the time for having a handgun "out of easy reach" but inside a vehicle compartment - it violates many states' laws and FOPA is not going to trump that. FOPA is not an out of easy reach standard, and you advising people of such not helpful.
    Citation? "All the time" means nothing. Link to a case where that was the instant cause and finding of a conviction. OP is asking about "peaceful transport" and that is protected by USC statute. Failing a felony stop and consequent search, or probable cause to obtain and execute a search warrant, tell me how your determination of 'easy reach'--which was admittedly a paraphrase, unties with "readily accessible" which is what I quoted and the statute states. Readily accessible is a determination of fact, not law. Nowhere did I qualify determination of fact; just law. Lex vulgate, and the judge or jury, determines the application of the law then the facts. You're wrong. With a felony stop, a gun locked and stored in the trunk can lead to additional charges, Fed statute notwithstanding, so there is no absolute guarantee of immunity if other charges are filed. Intent is the key factor--was it peaceful transport, or a violation of weapons laws subsequent to other crimes being comitted. That is tried as fact. This discussion dealt with interpretation of law. And further to not being helpful, it seems most of the people on this forum are quite intelligent enough to get a full understanding of the discussion and their options. The question was one of protection during peaceful transport. Asked and answered.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •