Federal gun transport laws: what IS a destination?

So, federal law protects the right to transport a gun from one place where one may legally possess it, to another place where one can legally posses it, even if passing thru states that don't recognize the rkba, as long as its unloaded, locked, And inaccessible to the driver That's the gist of the law, I'm on a mobile so I can't link/quote it but I do know what it says. Question is, what legally defines a destination? If I leave from here in WA state, travel thru every one of the lower 48, and return to WA, my destination is the same as my point of origin, where I can legally possess a gun, but I will pass thru several states along the way that dont permit me to. They are not my destination, although I may pause for gas, food, etc... This is all hypothetical of course as I have no plans for such a trip, but how long of a pause could get one into legal trouble there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IANAL... but here is MY interpretation and reasoning......

As an OTR truck driver, I carry (with permit from MS) all over the country.
My "home terminal" (workplace) is in another state than my residence, and both states are "legal to own".

I see it like this....
I leave home for "work" and that is my destination (eventually).
I leave "work" for home, and THAT is my destination (eventually).

ALL others are just "passing through" with short stopoffs.... just like a "traveller" on vacation.

My actual DESTINATION will ALWAYS be either "home" or "work" if asked by authorities.
(and they can't know/prove otherwise)


IF you are travelling on a trip, I would say for you to pick a "destination" that is a "legal area" to be your REPORTED destination if asked.
"They" have no way of knowing or determining if you are actually going there or not, or if you even went there.
It's your word/report that sets the stage in that case.

A trip which is a "loop" can LEGALLY have the same location as "origin" and as the "destination".
(this is precedented and defined in truckers' DOT regulations, as well as by common sense, and should be admissable as "proof" if needed)


Again, I Am Not A Lawyer..... but I did reasearch this quite a bit.
Hope it helps.

MedicineMan said:

IANAL... but here is MY interpretation and reasoning......

As an OTR truck driver, I carry (with permit from MS) all over the country.
My "home terminal" (workplace) is in another state than my residence, and both states are "legal to own".

I see it like this....
I leave home for "work" and that is my destination (eventually).
I leave "work" for home, and THAT is my destination (eventually).

ALL others are just "passing through" with short stopoffs.... just like a "traveller" on vacation.

My actual DESTINATION will ALWAYS be either "home" or "work" if asked by authorities.
(and they can't know/prove otherwise)


IF you are travelling on a trip, I would say for you to pick a "destination" that is a "legal area" to be your REPORTED destination if asked.
"They" have no way of knowing or determining if you are actually going there or not, or if you even went there.
It's your word/report that sets the stage in that case.

A trip which is a "loop" can LEGALLY have the same location as "origin" and as the "destination".
(this is precedented and defined in truckers' DOT regulations, as well as by common sense, and should be admissable as "proof" if needed)


Again, I Am Not A Lawyer..... but I did reasearch this quite a bit.
Hope it helps.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's the kind of situation I'm wondering about... in your case, what if (legally speaking) you're unloading, or stopping to rest in a non-RKBA state, and somehow it came to the attention of a LEO that you had properly-locked firearm? Say if you give your destination as MS but you're going east bound into IL, what then?

If you are in an RV, your home (when you finally get there). If you are long haul, your home, or your main office.

You aren't required to file an itinerary with any gov't agency, are you?
Wherever you plan to stop for rest or recreation is your destination, and it can be one of many. Just don't slip up and claim a prohibited destination and you'll be fine.


You don't even have to be stopping overnight, as far as I know. Saying your destination is Jellystone Park to see the Wonderfalls is perfectly legal. You might have a destination after that, but that's subject to change at a moment's notice, isn't it?

Be careful.

You are only covered while traveling. If you make side-trips not directly associated with your travel or make other than short stops, you are not protected from State law by the federal law.

Watch out for folks on the Internet telling you what they have thus far gotten away with. That does not mean that acting similarly will not subject you to legal exposure.

The direction of 18 USC 926A is fairly clear. When the section was being prepared for FOPA, it contained text including the term "interstate", in the statute itself. This was reflected in the title of 926A. However, that section was amended into its current form, where the term "interstate" now appears nowhere in the statute. Titles of statutes shall be given no credence where the statute is unambiguous, but people go crazy over that title. This thread is not helped when you first refer to "any place . . . to any place" and then speak of the word "destination", which appears nowhere in § 926A. What 18 USC 926A evidences to me is that Congress created an immunity, and so long as it was effected under one of the several possible constitutional purposes, and it need not be a complete vindication of any particular right, then its clear and unambiguous language means "any place . . . to any place" including where each of those two any-places and all transportation in between is solely intrastate.

However, the courts prefer the rule of statutory construction that states that a statute "must be interpreted to further the ends of tyranny". Take, for example, the Third Circuit, who thinks that at least 3 states need to be involved to invoke § 926A. Revell v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 598 F. 3d 128, 132 (3rd Cir. 2010).

SNBQ said:

...Titles of statutes shall be given no credence where the statute is unambiguous...

Click to expand...

Cite? Logic would seem to dictate that, if the Congress included the title in the passed legislation, then that title would evidence the intent of the legislation and would be significant in interpreting the law. If the title were added by someone merely adding structure to the code, then, no, it should carry no weight in law.

Again, what precedent do you cite that not title of a statute should be given any credence?

Does anyone know if the title was part of the passed legislation or a clerical addition later?

The title was part of PL 99-360

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...nqkzhk&sig=AHIEtbTD1oAC24jvsZLVJH6lAZnHbjo_eA

eye95 said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

"t may be observed that while the title of an act cannot overcome the meaning of plain and unambiguous words used in its body, United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 386; Goodlett v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad, 122 U.S. 391, 408; Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U.S. 169, 172; Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418, 430; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U.S. 78, 92, the title of this act embraces the regulation of interstate commerce . . . Still, the name given to an act by way of designation or description, or the report which accompanies it, cannot change the plain import of its words. If the words are plain, they give meaning to the act, and it is neither the duty nor the privilege of the courts to enter speculative fields in search of a different meaning." Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 489-490 (1917).

"But headings and titles are not meant to take the place of the detailed provisions of the text. Nor are they necessarily designed to be a reference guide or a synopsis. Where the text is complicated and prolific, headings and titles can do no more than indicate the provisions in a most general manner; to attempt to refer to each specific provision would often be ungainly as well as useless. As a result, matters in the text which deviate from those falling within the general pattern are frequently unreflected in the headings and titles. Factors of this type have led to the wise rule that the title of a statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386; Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418, 430; Strathearn S.S. Co. v. Dillon, 252 U.S. 348, 354. For interpretative purposes, they are of use only when they shed light on some ambiguous word or phrase. They are but tools available for the resolution of a doubt. But they cannot undo or limit that which the text makes plain." Railroad Trainmen v. B. & OR CO., 331 U.S. 519, 528-529 (1947).

"We also note that "the title of a statute and the heading of a section" are "tools available for the resolution of a doubt" about the meaning of a statute. . . . In this instance the amendment's title does not reflect careless, or mistaken, drafting . . ." Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 234 (1998).

It doesn't matter whom put the heading or title there. If they wanted the word 'interstate' in the text, and they had that in the version PRIOR to the text we actually have now, they would have put it in the text of the section instead of in a heading. Instead, they took the word 'interstate' out of the place in the text of the section in which it had been.

The founders didn't specify, so I'd say, "when I get to where I'm going" should be good enough.

What happened to not talking to the police? If you do talk why not tell them your final destination is ________, but that your current destination (before being stopped) is (was) going to be at a restaurant when you next need to take a piss and eat. After that, a Hotel to sleep.