Reciprocity with our neighboring States

[Len-2A Training]

FOPA does NOT protect you wrt staying overnight in a hotel. This was a court ruling in NY (of all places) but I'm unaware of any other rulings that contradict this.

Since possession does not require permits/licenses in most states, it is not a big deal outside of NY, NJ, MA, CT and RI (that I'm aware of).

 

[dcmdon]

The NY ruling applied to a guy who was on an airplane, was diverted to NY, retrieved his luggage, went to a hotel, then tried to check his guns in at a Port Authority run airport. (I can't remember if it was LGA, JFK, or EWR.

To the best of my knowledge there have not been any rulings against people DRIVING through.

Don

 

[jasons]

The NY ruling applied to a guy who was on an airplane, was diverted to NY, retrieved his luggage, went to a hotel, then tried to check his guns in at a Port Authority run airport. (I can't remember if it was LGA, JFK, or EWR.

To the best of my knowledge there have not been any rulings against people DRIVING through.

Don

There was another one where a guy pulled into a parking lot for a quick nap and a cop checking on him saw a gun case through the window. Might have been NJ.

 

[dcmdon]

There was another one where a guy pulled into a parking lot for a quick nap and a cop checking on him saw a gun case through the window. Might have been NJ.

Can you find a citation?

The key question there was if he was in compliance with the requirements to get FOPA protection.

 

[jasons]

There was another one where a guy pulled into a parking lot for a quick nap and a cop checking on him saw a gun case through the window. Might have been NJ.

Found it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3024809/posts

 

[dcmdon]

This is a 4th Amendment case. It has nothing to do with FOPA. The issue here was whether or not the cop had reasonable articulable suspicion to search the vehicle based on his observation of a gun case ON THE BACK SEAT.

So here is how this man fails the FOPA requirments:

1) He had a LOADED glock with him
2) The vehicle did not have a trunk. So for FOPA protection, the firearms would need to be in locked cases. Not, zippered pouches.

The prosecutor said "Basically, if someone is moving... from Residence A to Residence B, or transporting, say, for example, they just purchased it, so they can transport it to their home, if they are properly secured, locked in a trunk, locked in a special lockbox and unloaded, then that would most likely provide an exception to these requirements"

Hes saying that if the guns were in locked cases in the back of his SUV, he would not have prosecuted.
Also, note that of the items he was actually CONVICTED of, two of the four were not directly Firearms charges. They related to possession of hollow point bullets and a standard capacity magazine. These two items are not covered by FOPA's safe passage clause.

So really, this case has absolutely nothing to do with FOPA protections.

Don

 

[Len-2A Training]

The NY ruling applied to a guy who was on an airplane, was diverted to NY, retrieved his luggage, went to a hotel, then tried to check his guns in at a Port Authority run airport. (I can't remember if it was LGA, JFK, or EWR.

To the best of my knowledge there have not been any rulings against people DRIVING through.

Don

No, that case was at EWR, not NY. Gov. Christi commuted his sentence after he served 3 years in a NJ prison.

There was another one where a guy pulled into a parking lot for a quick nap and a cop checking on him saw a gun case through the window. Might have been NJ.

Found it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3024809/posts

That is NOT the case I was referring to. It was a NY case but no I don't recall details and have no citation for it.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Speaking as a new licensee who likes to spend a lot of time on the weekends driving around in cars in the summer, I find it aggravating that I need to possess a pocket full of licenses just to be able to drive around and keep my handgun on me. Heck I am worried about going hiking on a weekend and accidentally getting too close to the MA/CT state line or worse the MA/NY state line and finding myself arrested because I don't know where the invisible line in the sand is. The funny thing is my LTC is now making me reconsider places I would normally go, such as the RI beaches in the summer time. I know for certain that I want to get a CT license only because I have shooting friends in CT, and CT also has nice beaches too.

Nowadays I am thinking that I don't know if I want to be bothered with stupid laws from other states. If I vote with my feet and they get no tourism dollars but another state does, then maybe they can think about it, which I doubt they will but it's nice sometimes to think our legislators aren't all hulking morons.

The whole concept of having to disarm myself now because of an invisible line on a map just seems ludicrous. Maybe it just took me owning an actual gun to finally figure it out for myself.

 

[jasons]

This is a 4th Amendment case. It has nothing to do with FOPA. The issue here was whether or not the cop had reasonable articulable suspicion to search the vehicle based on his observation of a gun case ON THE BACK SEAT.

So here is how this man fails the FOPA requirments:

1) He had a LOADED glock with him
2) The vehicle did not have a trunk. So for FOPA protection, the firearms would need to be in locked cases. Not, zippered pouches.

The prosecutor said "Basically, if someone is moving... from Residence A to Residence B, or transporting, say, for example, they just purchased it, so they can transport it to their home, if they are properly secured, locked in a trunk, locked in a special lockbox and unloaded, then that would most likely provide an exception to these requirements"

Hes saying that if the guns were in locked cases in the back of his SUV, he would not have prosecuted.
Also, note that of the items he was actually CONVICTED of, two of the four were not directly Firearms charges. They related to possession of hollow point bullets and a standard capacity magazine. These two items are not covered by FOPA's safe passage clause.

So really, this case has absolutely nothing to do with FOPA protections.

Don

You're right, but the point is that FOPA isn't some magic talisman that will protect you in all situations. If the wrong cop happens to see something gun related in your car while in certain states there's a pretty good chance that you'll be in for a bad day. Do you think this guy wouldn't have been jammed up even if he had been following FOPA to the letter? I doubt it.... He may have won the case in the end but chances are he still would have been a defendant. The previous poster's advice to stay out of NY and NJ is good advice. At least be smart and make yourself as invisible as possible.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You're right, but the point is that FOPA isn't some magic talisman that will protect you in all situations. If the wrong cop happens to see something gun related in your car while in certain states there's a pretty good chance that you'll be in for a bad day. Do you think this guy wouldn't have been jammed up even if he had been following FOPA to the letter? I doubt it.... He may have won the case in the end but chances are he still would have been a defendant. The previous poster's advice to stay out of NY and NJ is good advice. At least be smart and make yourself as invisible as possible.

NY and NJ have pointed out that FOPA is an "affirmative defense", not a "keep out of jail card". "Affirmative Defense" means you CAN be arrested/prosecuted and it is up to your attorney to convince a judge/jury that you shouldn't be convicted due to FOPA. It's an expensive ride even if you win.

 

[loonski]

The provisions of these sections shall not apply to any person who is the holder of a valid license or permit issued by the licensing authority of another state, or territory of the United States, or political subdivision of the state or territory, allowing him or her to carry a pistol or revolver in any vehicle or conveyance or on or about his or her person whether visible or concealed, provided the person is merely transporting the firearm through the state in a vehicle or other conveyance without any intent on the part of the person to detain him or herself or remain within the state of Rhode Island.

Ok so if this is true, the way I am reading it, with a MA LTC I can carry in RI while driving through Providence from SE MASS to Western MASS as long as I don't stop in RI? This really suprises me, any RI lawyers to comment?

Thanks!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Why can't Ct, Ma, & RI get along?

Ct.'s non resident permit is $89.25 for 5 years. No bad!

Ma. non resident (maybe restrictive) permit is $100 for a year & a trip to Chelsea. Real Bad!
R.I. most likely will deny the first attempt for non resident permits. WTF!

Will we ever see reciprocity?
Will this ever change?

Nope and Nope

 

[scubadive.ri]

Nope and Nope

The provisions of these sections shall not apply to any person who is the holder of a valid license or permit issued by the licensing authority of another state, or territory of the United States, or political subdivision of the state or territory, allowing him or her to carry a pistol or revolver in any vehicle or conveyance or on or about his or her person whether visible or concealed, provided the person is merely transporting the firearm through the state in a vehicle or other conveyance without any intent on the part of the person to detain him or herself or remain within the state of Rhode Island.

Ok so if this is true, the way I am reading it, with a MA LTC I can carry in RI while driving through Providence from SE MASS to Western MASS as long as I don't stop in RI? This really suprises me, any RI lawyers to comment?

Thanks!

I'm not a lawyer but that is correct, just don't stop in Rhode Island you can only drive through.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The provisions of these sections shall not apply to any person who is the holder of a valid license or permit issued by the licensing authority of another state, or territory of the United States, or political subdivision of the state or territory, allowing him or her to carry a pistol or revolver in any vehicle or conveyance or on or about his or her person whether visible or concealed, provided the person is merely transporting the firearm through the state in a vehicle or other conveyance without any intent on the part of the person to detain him or herself or remain within the state of Rhode Island.

Ok so if this is true, the way I am reading it, with a MA LTC I can carry in RI while driving through Providence from SE MASS to Western MASS as long as I don't stop in RI? This really suprises me, any RI lawyers to comment?

Thanks!

just mash the pedal to the rug

 

[Len-2A Training]

The provisions of these sections shall not apply to any person who is the holder of a valid license or permit issued by the licensing authority of another state, or territory of the United States, or political subdivision of the state or territory, allowing him or her to carry a pistol or revolver in any vehicle or conveyance or on or about his or her person whether visible or concealed, provided the person is merely transporting the firearm through the state in a vehicle or other conveyance without any intent on the part of the person to detain him or herself or remain within the state of Rhode Island.

Ok so if this is true, the way I am reading it, with a MA LTC I can carry in RI while driving through Providence from SE MASS to Western MASS as long as I don't stop in RI? This really suprises me, any RI lawyers to comment?

Thanks!

IANAL, but I got that in writing from RI BCI when I addressed another question to them some years ago. It's real and it is good.

I was surprised as well.

 

[dcmdon]

So would this also mean that if I hold a CT PP and a MA LTC, I can continue to carry (loaded and concealed) while driving on I95 from MA to CT?

If so, I'm amazed.

 

[mbullism]

Late to the party, but I frequently enough go MA146s to RI146 to 295 to 95 to 495 to RTE 1 to get to bass pro in foxborough (my origin state and destination state happen to be the same, and I'm legal in both, lol)...just pass through and wave

I do keep a copy of 11-47-8 in the truck, though

(if it weren't for an RI archery license to hunt sundays in the fall, the state wouldn't see a nickel from me...)

 

[RImike]

Late to the party, but I frequently enough go MA146s to RI146 to 295 to 95 to 495 to RTE 1 to get to bass pro in foxborough (my origin state and destination state happen to be the same, and I'm legal in both, lol)...just pass through and wave

I do keep a copy of 11-47-8 in the truck, though

(if it weren't for an RI archery license to hunt sundays in the fall, the state wouldn't see a nickel from me...)

I am not aware of any issued permits through the towns in accordance with 11-47-11, which is shall issue.

(a) The licensing authorities of any city or town shall, upon application of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having a bona fide residence or place of business within the city or town, or of any person twenty-one (21) years of age or over having a bona fide residence within the United States and a license or permit to carry a pistol or revolver concealed upon his or her person issued by the authorities of any other state or subdivision of the United States,

So reading it on face value, as long as you have a home state permit, you can apply for a shall issue town permit. If you get one, well that's up to how good your lawyers are as it most likely would involve a legal challenge.