3rd circuit says FOPA doesn't apply to air travel

[ryan_j]

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/123621p.pdf

In our view, plaintiff here has failed to satisfy even the
first requirement of the first step of the process, i.e., that
Congress intended that section 926A benefit this particular
plaintiff. This is evident from the plain meaning of the statute.
Although the unwieldy sentence that comprises section 926A
is drafted in a roundabout way, on a careful reading its
language is clear and unambiguous. It begins by establishing
a clear positive entitlement: a person who meets its
requirements “shall be entitled” to transport firearms in
certain circumstances. Cf. Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 287
(contrasting the rights-creating language of “no person . . .
shall be . . . subjected” with language typical of spending
clause statutes, e.g., “no funds shall be made available.”). But
the part of the sentence that immediately follows expressly
conditions this entitlement as only being operative “if, during
such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the
firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily

directly accessible from the passenger
compartment of such transporting vehicle.” 18 U.S.C. § 926A
(emphasis supplied).
It is plain from the latter condition that the statute
protects only transportation of a firearm in a vehicle, and
requires that the firearm and ammunition be neither readily
nor directly accessible from the passenger compartment of
such vehicle. In particular, the word “such,” in “such
transporting vehicle,” by definition refers back to earlier
part(s) of the sentence, and the only parts it could possibly
refer to are the parts referring to the transportation of a
firearm or ammunition. The use of “such” therefore makes
clear that the transportation the statute protects must occur in
a “transporting vehicle.”

...

In light of the plain meaning of the statute, fully
corroborated by the legislative history, we hold that section
926A benefits only those who wish to transport firearms in
vehicles—and not, therefore, any of the kinds of
“transportation” that, by necessity, would be involved should
a person like those represented by the Association wish to
transport a firearm by foot through an airport terminal or Port
Authority site.

There you have it. The third circuit says that going from one state to another is only protected if you're going there in a vehicle, and not by any other means.

 

[MJD438]

Gee, I was taught that an airplane is a vehicle. Paying passengers fly in the "passenger compartment" while cargo/checked luggage goes in the "luggage compartment" which just happens to be not readily accessible from the aforementioned "passenger compartment".

Will have to read the whole ruling, but this makes as much sense a teats on a bull.

 

[Brooksy]

Is vehicle defined in the statute? If not, how is an airplane not a vehicle?

 

[MJD438]

Disregard my last - they do not even reach the point of an airplane being a vehicle. They strike FOPA protections the instant someone's feet hit the deck:

It follows from this plain meaning that an ambulatory
plaintiff who intends to transit through Newark Airport is
outside the coverage of the statute.

 

[Brooksy]

From OED at least one definition of vehicle with usage back as far as 1678, "Any means of carriage, conveyance, or transport; a receptacle in which anything is placed in order to be moved."

 

[swinokur]

Well, DOJ issued it's opinion on travel here. And this ruling only applies to the 3rd circuit anyway. NJ and PA, two places I'll never fly to anyway.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well, DOJ issued it's opinion on travel here. And this ruling only applies to the 3rd circuit anyway. NJ and PA, two places I'll never fly to anyway.

And if you are rerouted? Will you para drop?

This is more civil disobedience by the courts..

 

[kohburn]

then the TSA needs to provide an appropriate form of transport through the terminal

 

[kohburn]

And if you are rerouted? Will you para drop?

This is more civil disobedience by the courts..

yeah, the intent is clearly to allow travel through an unfriendly state unharassed.

 

[Brooklyn]

Let's pull federal funding from NY and nj airports...

 

[yellowfin]

Typical. Statist courts don't want to overturn leftist state's policies because that's exactly the kind of government they like, and anti gun is the ideology the judges' location and their law school upbringing nurtures them to have. Do we have an effective counter to the incestuous circle?

 

[swinokur]

And if you are rerouted? Will you para drop?

This is more civil disobedience by the courts..

I don't fly anywhere I would be rerouted to those 2 septic tanks. (No offense to our PA members.)

Wonder if they will attempt to get CERT.

 

[Klunatic]

I don't fly anywhere I would be rerouted to those 2 septic tanks. (No offense to our PA members.)

Wonder if they will attempt to get CERT.

Not even if you take off from BWI and have an in flight emergency? Harrisburg, Philly are very close emergency alternates?

 

[Brooklyn]

I don't fly anywhere I would be rerouted to those 2 septic tanks. (No offense to our PA members.)

Wonder if they will attempt to get CERT.

Fair enough ever fly to Md? If so you can be rerouted in. An emergency... its all about safety one inbound bird with a declared emergency and things can get interesting.. how about a down plane taking out your destination airfield for a few hours. Not much mid sir refueling going on....

Now I share you sentiment, t ruly,and drive anywhere up to 1200 miles after that not much choice.

The ruling is so absurd as to suggest malfeasance..

Wonder if this will come up at grpc.

 

[swinokur]

Normally I fly out and in to Dulles. I suppose it's a possibility but perhaps the reroute could be used as an affirmative defense since you could tell the court your original destination was not PA or NJ and therefore had no control over the destination if a reroute occurs.

 

[RightNYer]

I only hope that after the inevitable Civil War, we have Nuremberg type trials for the leftist traitors who precipitated the conflict, and that these judges are the first ones to face the gallows.

 

[Ab_Normal]

I only hope that after the inevitable Civil War, we have Nuremberg type trials for the leftist traitors who precipitated the conflict, and that these judges are the first ones to face the gallows.

Don't hold back next time...tell us how you really feel.

 

[RightNYer]

Don't hold back next time...tell us how you really feel.

Basically, I think conservatives need to stop seeing liberals are our fellow citizens, and as our enemies. That includes family. I've cut off contact with everyone in my family who voted for Obama either time.

Stop seeing liberals are good people who disagree or who are simply misguided. Start seeing them as evil traitors and genuinely bad people who don't deserve to be in the same country as us.

 

[hvymax]

Basically, I think conservatives need to stop seeing liberals are our fellow citizens, and as our enemies. That includes family. I've cut off contact with everyone in my family who voted for Obama either time.

Stop seeing liberals are good people who disagree or who are simply misguided. Start seeing them as evil traitors and genuinely bad people who don't deserve to be in the same country as us.

 

[MJD438]

...