TexasCHLforum.com

So many people get sloppy with understanding that FOPA only protects a traveler when the gun in legal to possess in the state you started in and the state you finished in. This guy was even more confused: he thought his California concealed carry license was valid in New York!

Tea Party Leader Arrested After Attempting to Check in With Gun at Airport.

He declared his cased handgun when checking in at LaGuardia Airport. Liberal media loves to splash the "Tea Party" connection around as if that makes someone a terrorist. . . .

...we need to be smarter than that...especially when we know "they" have a bullseye on us already...

The article says:

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler was taken into custody Thursday morning after he tried to check in for a Delta flight to Detroit with a locked gun box containing a Glock pistol and 19 cartridges of ammunition, Queens prosecutors said.

Meckler, 49, declared the weapon, as required, authorities said. He's licensed to carry the gun in Grass Valley, Calif., where he lives, but that license isn't valid in New York, which has strict rules on carrying concealed weapons, they said.

I don't get it..... His gun is in a locked case. He's not "carrying concealed" by any normal definition of the law.....at least in most states. In fact, in most states, transporting a gun in a locked container would be viewed as compliance with the law. Is carrying a gun in a locked case considered to be "concealed carry" in NY? If so, how does a lawful gun owner get to and from a shooting range?

Under what definition of the law in NY was he illegally carrying a concealed weapon?

The Annoyed Man wrote:The article says:

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler was taken into custody Thursday morning after he tried to check in for a Delta flight to Detroit with a locked gun box containing a Glock pistol and 19 cartridges of ammunition, Queens prosecutors said.

Meckler, 49, declared the weapon, as required, authorities said. He's licensed to carry the gun in Grass Valley, Calif., where he lives, but that license isn't valid in New York, which has strict rules on carrying concealed weapons, they said.

I don't get it..... His gun is in a locked case. He's not "carrying concealed" by any normal definition of the law.....at least in most states. In fact, in most states, transporting a gun in a locked container would be viewed as compliance with the law. Is carrying a gun in a locked case considered to be "concealed carry" in NY? If so, how does a lawful gun owner get to and from a shooting range?

Under what definition of the law in NY was he illegally carrying a concealed weapon?

You are assuming New York is a "normal" state. You must be licensed by the state or a major city in order to possess a handgun. Merely having possession of a handgun is against the law. Here is some good info about the ridiculousness that is New York gun laws.

...New York sucks...surprise!!! they require that he's travelling(no extended stops) and that where he's going allows unlicensed possession...his CA carry permit covers him in MI so I'd guess they got him on the extended stop portion...

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:You are assuming New York is a "normal" state. You must be licensed by the state or a major city in order to possess a handgun. Merely having possession of a handgun is against the law. Here is some good info about the ridiculousness that is New York gun laws.

OK, that makes sense to me. I didn't realize that NY required a license merely to possess a handgun. I am so used to California's brand of repression, that I forget there are places that are even worse. I knew that NY was bad, and I also know that Illinois and DC are terrible, but I just assumed that New York state's laws were similar to California's........which is probably what got this guy in trouble in the first place. He's from California. He probably figured, "what could be worse?" In California, without a permit to carry concealed (something which is about as rare as hen's teeth), one is required to secure the gun, unloaded, in a locked case. Although the law doesn't specify this, some jurisdictions consider the gun to be "loaded" if charged magazines/speedloaders are cased with the gun in the same box, even if not inserted into the gun; and some people attempting to lawfully transport their firearms have been busted for this. I don't recall if they were ultimately no-billed or acquited. If I recall correctly, San Bernardino County sherrif's deputies were notorious for this kind of bust.

Personally, I never worried about it too much when I lived there because A) the jurisdictional areas I frequented were not as bad as San Berdoo; B) I don't drive in a manner that will get me pulled over; and C) I'm a middle aged white guy whose physical appearance doesn't fit the "trouble on wheels" profile. I would unload the gun, but case the charged magazines along with the gun. Even so, on rare occasion I did break the law. If I had to make a late night drive through an ATM, I would keep a loaded and uncased pistol under my car seat; and during the "Rodney King Riots" I stuck a 1911 in a fanny pack and carried it illegally. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6; and being a person of "not-color" in the part of town I had to work in, at night, during a time when guys like me were getting dragged out of their vehicles and beaten half to death, made the added protection worth the risk of getting caught. But those were very rare things, and I tried for the most part to plan my day so that I would not feel the need to break the law.

I'll tell you what, there are a few things to legitimately complain about with regard to the process of obtaining a CHL in Texas—the cost of the fee being one of the primary ones—but compared to California, Texas is a gun-owner's Nirvana. When I look back at my time living in Calfornia and realize how much in the way of denial of rights I simply accepted because I just didn't know any other way of living, I thank God that I live in Texas now because I now know what it feels like to be a free man.

My younger brother is getting married in Los Angeles in January, and my wife and I are driving back to California for a week to be at his wedding. We both carry guns, daily. Our trip takes us through New Mexico and Arizona, both of which are gun friendly states. Just before leaving Arizona (we've made this trip more than once), we stop in Kingman and unload and case up the guns before entering California. And each time we've done this, we felt like we were leaving America when we crossed the border, and entering a country where we had fewer rights and where we had to really mind our P's and Q's. On our last trip, my youngest brother—who is also a gun owner—asked me in hushed tones over breakfast what gun I had brought with me. When I answered in a normal voice, he got alarmed and shushed me, saying "Geeze TAM, people will hear you!" I asked him "since when did a conversation about firearms become banned speech unprotected by the 1st Amendment?" And his admonition was from a guy who considers himself to be a libertarian, standing up for his constitutional rights. I was flabbergasted. Even my wife was struck with just how starkly repressive the human rights climate is in California when someone has to be afraid that people will hear a conversation about guns. Just wow.

Note to self....Next time you go to New York, fly in and out of Pennsylvania and drive to New York...........or....just stay the heck away from that God-forsaken place.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:You are assuming New York is a "normal" state. You must be licensed by the state or a major city in order to possess a handgun. Merely having possession of a handgun is against the law. Here is some good info about the ridiculousness that is New York gun laws.

OK, that makes sense to me. I didn't realize that NY required a license merely to possess a handgun. I am so used to California's brand of repression, that I forget there are places that are even worse. I knew that NY was bad, and I also know that Illinois and DC are terrible, but I just assumed that New York state's laws were similar to California's........which is probably what got this guy in trouble in the first place. He's from California. He probably figured, "what could be worse?" In California, without a permit to carry concealed (something which is about as rare as hen's teeth), one is required to secure the gun, unloaded, in a locked case. Although the law doesn't specify this, some jurisdictions consider the gun to be "loaded" if charged magazines/speedloaders are cased with the gun in the same box, even if not inserted into the gun; and some people attempting to lawfully transport their firearms have been busted for this. I don't recall if they were ultimately no-billed or acquited. If I recall correctly, San Bernardino County sherrif's deputies were notorious for this kind of bust.

Personally, I never worried about it too much when I lived there because A) the jurisdictional areas I frequented were not as bad as San Berdoo; B) I don't drive in a manner that will get me pulled over; and C) I'm a middle aged white guy whose physical appearance doesn't fit the "trouble on wheels" profile. I would unload the gun, but case the charged magazines along with the gun. Even so, on rare occasion I did break the law. If I had to make a late night drive through an ATM, I would keep a loaded and uncased pistol under my car seat; and during the "Rodney King Riots" I stuck a 1911 in a fanny pack and carried it illegally. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6; and being a person of "not-color" in the part of town I had to work in, at night, during a time when guys like me were getting dragged out of their vehicles and beaten half to death, made the added protection worth the risk of getting caught. But those were very rare things, and I tried for the most part to plan my day so that I would not feel the need to break the law.

I'll tell you what, there are a few things to legitimately complain about with regard to the process of obtaining a CHL in Texas—the cost of the fee being one of the primary ones—but compared to California, Texas is a gun-owner's Nirvana. When I look back at my time living in Calfornia and realize how much in the way of denial of rights I simply accepted because I just didn't know any other way of living, I thank God that I live in Texas now because I now know what it feels like to be a free man.

My younger brother is getting married in Los Angeles in January, and my wife and I are driving back to California for a week to be at his wedding. We both carry guns, daily. Our trip takes us through New Mexico and Arizona, both of which are gun friendly states. Just before leaving Arizona (we've made this trip more than once), we stop in Kingman and unload and case up the guns before entering California. And each time we've done this, we felt like we were leaving America when we crossed the border, and entering a country where we had fewer rights and where we had to really mind our P's and Q's. On our last trip, my youngest brother—who is also a gun owner—asked me in hushed tones over breakfast what gun I had brought with me. When I answered in a normal voice, he got alarmed and shushed me, saying "Geeze TAM, people will hear you!" I asked him "since when did a conversation about firearms become banned speech unprotected by the 1st Amendment?" And his admonition was from a guy who considers himself to be a libertarian, standing up for his constitutional rights. I was flabbergasted. Even my wife was struck with just how starkly repressive the human rights climate is in California when someone has to be afraid that people will hear a conversation about guns. Just wow.

Note to self....Next time you go to New York, fly in and out of Pennsylvania and drive to New York...........or....just stay the heck away from that God-forsaken place.

TAM, Grass Valley is up in the Sierra foothills in Norcal; I've been there a couple of times, very pretty looking country. I do understand that the man should have checked the laws of where he was going to and through, but they are a LOT more gun-friendly up in that area of California. So, like you, he probably figured, what could be worse than his state? And maybe I misread the article, but they said he had a CC permit from California but did he actually use that as an excuse or did they just put it in there to make CC people look bad? You know how the media is...

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The article says:

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler was taken into custody Thursday morning after he tried to check in for a Delta flight to Detroit with a locked gun box containing a Glock pistol and 19 cartridges of ammunition, Queens prosecutors said.

Meckler, 49, declared the weapon, as required, authorities said. He's licensed to carry the gun in Grass Valley, Calif., where he lives, but that license isn't valid in New York, which has strict rules on carrying concealed weapons, they said.

I don't get it..... His gun is in a locked case. He's not "carrying concealed" by any normal definition of the law.....at least in most states. In fact, in most states, transporting a gun in a locked container would be viewed as compliance with the law. Is carrying a gun in a locked case considered to be "concealed carry" in NY? If so, how does a lawful gun owner get to and from a shooting range?

Under what definition of the law in NY was he illegally carrying a concealed weapon?

You are assuming New York is a "normal" state. You must be licensed by the state or a major city in order to possess a handgun. Merely having possession of a handgun is against the law. Here is some good info about the ridiculousness that is New York gun laws.

The page link you posted reminds me of why I will NOT go to New York, City or State, of my own free will in the foreseeable future. I have lost nothing in that place that I need to go there and find, but I might lose either my life or freedom, depending on the circumstances while being in said place. Their laws are absolutely DISGUSTING and a perversion of the Constitution of the United States of America. They are nothing more than an autocratic policestate. California was bad enough, but not that bad...sickening.

...according to the Traveler's Guide...he was legal where he came from, he was legal where he was going...but if you meet those requirements and stay over, not travelling straight through, then they pop you for having a handgun w/o a NY license to possess...you couldn't get me in NY, NJ, MA, CT, MD...ain't enough duct tape in the world!!!

New York's done this before. The reason people like this generally just pay fines is that NY knows that if they really prosecuted, they stand a significant risk of losing while the person charged settles because they don't want to spend time in jail waiting trial. NY is really the one violating the law here.

stroo wrote:New York's done this before. The reason people like this generally just pay fines is that NY knows that if they really prosecuted, they stand a significant risk of losing while the person charged settles because they don't want to spend time in jail waiting trial. NY is really the one violating the law here.

But, by paying the fine, do you now have a felony conviction?

...yes...and NY doesn't care...just like the old sheriff who slipped your brand new M19 in his drawer...and said "What gun?" " No evidence...I guess you're free to go..." and you either left it with him or were charged...once again...they have forgotten that they serve at our pleasure...and we've decided it's easier to roll over than to fight for our rights...I cringe when I hear someone paying a small-town speed trap ticket when they know they're not guilty...so they won't be late for work...same difference...

The Annoyed Man wrote: And each time we've done this, we felt like we were leaving America when we crossed the border, and entering a country where we had fewer rights and where we had to really mind our P's and Q's. .

I'd maintain that at least in spirit, that's exactly what you were doing.

Jumping Frog wrote:Liberal media loves to splash the "Tea Party" connection around as if that makes someone a terrorist. . . .

The libs have already been calling Tea Party members "terrorists." And the first time someone that can be in any way connected with the Tea Party acts out violently, and kills, or attempts to kill someone, the Tea Party just may be be officially designated as a "terrorist" organization. If so, anyone so affiliated will be subject to being "disappeared," under secret indefinite detention without trial under, our brand new enabling act.

The way that reads I wonder if he did it that way on purpose.