CHL arrested when plane diverted to Chicago

[Laneman]

Just thought I'd share this with those who check their guns at airports. In my CHL renewal class the instructor said a CHL was arrested when his flight was diverted to Chicago. He had checked his gun the normal way through TSA at his home airport. His plane needed an overnight repair, so he left the airport with his luggage and returned the next day. He went to check his gun at the counter like usual and was arrested for possessing a handgun in Chicago. I'm not sure how you could solve this one and keep your gun without getting arrested. Any ideas?

[apostate]

Don't collect your checked luggage.

[E.Marquez]

Yup, his mistake was taking possession of the luggage. No idea if your instructors story is real, but the event has happened more then once.

[The Annoyed Man]

Don't come back to the airport. Hire a cab, get yourself outside of Chicago. Call the airline and change your ticket to depart out of an airport where you won't get popped for having a gun with you.

[E.Marquez]

Don't come back to the airport. Hire a cab, get yourself outside of Chicago. Call the airline and change your ticket to depart out of an airport where you won't get popped for having a gun with you.

That may work,, my decision was to refuse to pick up my bag, though I was told I must... I simply said no, and I'll see you in the morning. I figured at worst,, I would loose the weapon, which is covered under my outstanding home owners policy...

Come morning I checked in and went to Huston, never took possession of, or touched my bag till I got to my destination (Killeen Texas)

[Jumping Frog]

Seems like a there is a good chance of well-intentioned internet fairy tale on this one.

Although Illinois is really awful, a CHL is accepted per Illinois State Police as being an acceptable alternate to an IL FOID. For people traveling through Chicago via FOPA, Chicago enforces a "24 hour" rule as to whether to regard Chicago as the destination.

If the instructor's intent was to illustrate "here is something that could happen", well sure, anyone can potentially be arrested for virtually anything, anywhere. But if he was saying it actually happened, I'd love to see the case.

I know this exact scenario has resulted in arrests in both New York City and in New Jersey. Just never heard of this for Chicago.

[ScooterSissy]

Don't come back to the airport. Hire a cab, get yourself outside of Chicago. Call the airline and change your ticket to depart out of an airport where you won't get popped for having a gun with you.

That may work,, my decision was to refuse to pick up my bag, though I was told I must... I simply said no, and I'll see you in the morning. I figured at worst,, I would loose the weapon, which is covered under my outstanding home owners policy...

Come morning I checked in and went to Huston, never took possession of, or touched my bag till I got to my destination (Killeen Texas)

If you really wanted to get nasty (and teach the airline a lesson), couldn't you report the airline to the police? Aren't they actually in posession of a handgun? You sent it to elsewhere, they brought it there agains your plans.

[Dave2]

Don't come back to the airport. Hire a cab, get yourself outside of Chicago. Call the airline and change your ticket to depart out of an airport where you won't get popped for having a gun with you.

That may work,, my decision was to refuse to pick up my bag, though I was told I must... I simply said no, and I'll see you in the morning. I figured at worst,, I would loose the weapon, which is covered under my outstanding home owners policy...

Come morning I checked in and went to Huston, never took possession of, or touched my bag till I got to my destination (Killeen Texas)

If you really wanted to get nasty (and teach the airline a lesson), couldn't you report the airline to the police? Aren't they actually in posession of a handgun? You sent it to elsewhere, they brought it there agains your plans.

Yes, and they might have the resources to fight the government on whether or not merely possessing a gun is can be illegal.

[E.Marquez]

You both may be right, I choose not to be a test case

[VMI77]

Don't come back to the airport. Hire a cab, get yourself outside of Chicago. Call the airline and change your ticket to depart out of an airport where you won't get popped for having a gun with you.

That may work,, my decision was to refuse to pick up my bag, though I was told I must... I simply said no, and I'll see you in the morning. I figured at worst,, I would loose the weapon, which is covered under my outstanding home owners policy...

Come morning I checked in and went to Huston, never took possession of, or touched my bag till I got to my destination (Killeen Texas)

If you really wanted to get nasty (and teach the airline a lesson), couldn't you report the airline to the police? Aren't they actually in posession of a handgun? You sent it to elsewhere, they brought it there agains your plans.

That's not the way the system works. The government doesn't challenge big corporations on cases like this, just like they don't confiscate airliners found with smuggled drugs aboard, though they confiscate individually owned shrimp boats when a crewman is found with a consumable amount of marijuana in his possession, or someone's family boat, found with a "hidden compartment" but no drugs.

[E.Marquez]

That's not the way the system works. The government doesn't challenge big corporations on cases like this, just like they don't confiscate airliners found with smuggled drugs aboard, though they confiscate individually owned shrimp boats when a crewman is found with a consumable amount of marijuana in his possession, or someone's family boat, found with a "hidden compartment" but no drugs.

Cite? Had not heard nor did a quick search find a family boat that was confiscated for having a hidden compartment..

From the FBI's own web site (public version, not even the restricted site)

Therefore, to establish a violation of Section 863 in a hidden trap case, the following elements must be established beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) The perpetrator sold or offered drug paraphernalia for sale.

2) The hidden trap was equipment or a product primarily intended or designed for use in concealing a controlled substance.

3) The perpetrator acted knowingly

Thanks

[VMI77]

That's not the way the system works. The government doesn't challenge big corporations on cases like this, just like they don't confiscate airliners found with smuggled drugs aboard, though they confiscate individually owned shrimp boats when a crewman is found with a consumable amount of marijuana in his possession, or someone's family boat, found with a "hidden compartment" but no drugs.

Cite? Had not heard nor did a quick search find a family boat that was confiscated for having a hidden compartment..

From the FBI's own web site (public version, not even the restricted site)

Therefore, to establish a violation of Section 863 in a hidden trap case, the following elements must be established beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) The perpetrator sold or offered drug paraphernalia for sale.

2) The hidden trap was equipment or a product primarily intended or designed for use in concealing a controlled substance.

3) The perpetrator acted knowingly

Thanks

What you're quoting from the FBI site is addressing charges and conviction; what I'm talking about is seizure. The FBI site also says this:

Investigators also may seize a vehicle containing a hide.

Seizure is the game because seizing and selling property doesn't require a charge or a conviction. It's true that in many cases you can get your property back with $30,000 or more paid out in legal fees, but that's what the game is based on. The authorities know that seizures are not going to be contested unless the value is high enough to motivate a court challenge.

My remark was based on personal knowledge of shrimp boats seized (back when I used to live in the RGV) and memory of other cases involving cars and boats. I doubt whether I can find articles about family boat seizures on the internet, unless they were contested in court, which is unlikely. It doesn't really matter, since my point isn't about boats and hidden compartments in particular, but the fact that the government will take actions against individuals that they won't take against large corporations, even when those corporations have been caught engaging in criminal conduct.....witness the banks that were merely fined for laundering huge amounts of money for the drug cartels. Cash is the most often confiscated property --and these cases are all over the internet.

My remark is not based on any one particular thing as much as the general observation that this country's legal system is degenerating into one system for the wealthy and powerful, who are not even prosecuted for their crimes (re the banks), and another for the rest of us who can see draconian punishments for bureaucratic and technical violations (such as the gun in New Jersey with the gun locked in his trunk and a recent case of a couple charged with a felony for depositing their own money in the own bank account in the wrong amounts).

[srothstein]

Seems like a there is a good chance of well-intentioned internet fairy tale on this one.
[snip]
I know this exact scenario has resulted in arrests in both New York City and in New Jersey. Just never heard of this for Chicago.

I don't think it was a fairy tale as much as someone who did not remember all the details of a case properly. Revell v. Port Authority was denied cert by SCOTUS. It involved a man who was on a flight to Allentown, PA, with a switch at Newark. He missed the connecting flight due to airport problems and had to stay at a hotel in NJ. When he came back in the morning, he was arrested for illegal possession.

[urnoodle]

I intend to take a trip home to see my family around Christmas. So I've been contemplating this very issue due to typical weather delays at that time of the year. All airlines land in either Newark or NYC when the weather is bad. I'm considering leaving my guns at home but I'd really like to take them with me. I would declare them at the airport of origin so wouldn't the airline be responsible for the bag if I left it in their possession due to a flight delay or cancelation that was outside of my control? Otherwise I would think the airline would be an accessory to a crime because they knew a firearm was inside and they encouraged a passenger to take the bag with them.

[Deltaboy]

It won't change until some Lawyer or someone with deep pockets get shafted on this and they find a way to hold the airlines responsible as an accessory to the crime for making you take it in a restricted area.