TexasCHLforum.com

This is likely to go nowhere.

LINK

With our legal system who knows how it will turn out. I don't know how one can sue over failing in their own responsibility. If traveling it is your responsibly to know the laws of your destination.

wheelgun1958 wrote:This is likely to go nowhere.

LINK

You never know.

Longshot38 wrote:If traveling it is your responsibly to know the laws of your destination.

True, but with that whole "right to keep and bear arms" thing, one might assume that having a gun properly secured in your luggage would be legal everywhere in the country.

It is not delta's responsibility to correct someone’s goof up, he as a gun owner and traveling to another state had a responsibility to know and understand the gun laws of the state he is traveling to.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse

barstoolguru wrote:It is not delta's responsibility to correct someone’s goof up

That's true. He should've gone after NYC if he wanted to actually get out of his legal troubles.

While NYC's gun laws are an atrocity, I don't understand the basis for the suit. It is not the responsible of a company if you decide to break the law of a region.

Delta's website says:

If you need to travel with a weapon as checked baggage, you are responsible for knowledge of and compliance with all Federal, State, or Local laws regarding the possession and transportation of firearms. For more information about this regulation you can visit the TSA site.

So who's to blame?

GEM-Texas wrote:While NYC's gun laws are an atrocity, I don't understand the basis for the suit. It is not the responsible of a company if you decide to break the law of a region.

Delta's website says:

If you need to travel with a weapon as checked baggage, you are responsible for knowledge of and compliance with all Federal, State, or Local laws regarding the possession and transportation of firearms. For more information about this regulation you can visit the TSA site.

So who's to blame?

He is responsible for his own mistake; he needed to check the laws in the state(s) he was traveling to or from. The law doesn’t change and it's not delta's responsibility to keep up with all the laws in every state to convenience the customer.
If they went and told people where they could travel with a firearm that would be practicing law and they are not lawyers and if something would happen that would put them in a bad situation. Given the number of people that fly they would have to spend millions in legal fees because they might have gave false info

While he is responsible for his mistake, Delta certainly has the potential for some liability also. They are clearly aware of the potential for someone traveling with a weapon and clearly are aware that there is a possibility of the person not knowing the law. They also are clearly aware of their policy of notifying the police when someone checks a weapon. Yet they did not post a warning of the potential problem or the warning that they would notify the police when you declared a checked weapon. This is where I see some liability for them as a possibility.

My question that would make the difference is how the clerk would know if the weapon was illegal or not. If they had some reason to know, they might not have a liability but if they notify the police on every checked weapon, then they could. If I were on the jury, I would find them liable for their notifying the police if it comes out that they tell them about every weapon and not just the ones they know (somehow) are illegal. There is no liability for reporting a suspected crime, but reporting every gun is not reporting suspected crimes.

barstoolguru wrote:It is not delta's responsibility to correct someone’s goof up, he as a gun owner and traveling to another state had a responsibility to know and understand the gun laws of the state he is traveling to.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Not picking on you, since several picked up on this theme.

I couldn't disagree more. He was in complete compliance with federal law. Why should he be expected to understand that New York is in violation of the Constitution and completely in defiance of federal laws that apply to air travel? Just because WE hang out in a gun forum and know these things does not mean that every gun owner should be similarly aware. And yes, if you're flying to a New York city airport (which is the only place in New York (that I'm aware) that has this asinine policy, it is the responsibility of the airline to notify you of their policy with regard to firearms as well as New York's lawless disregard for the Constitution. The airline knew he had a firearm when he boarded (because he declared it as required by federal law) and knew his destination was problematic with regard to a firearm even though he was in complete compliance with federal law.

On a side note, it's past time someone sued the pants off NYC or Congress withheld funds from the city until they come into compliance with federal law. It's time to turn the tables on Mayor Blowhard.

There have a been a few cases where the traveler did not intended to stop or remain in NYC, and was arrested after an unscheduled layover caused by weather of other issues beyond there control, when they re-checked bags containing a gun..
one of those should be the test case.

This guy in the linked article was an ignorant tool.

Benedetto, who has a concealed carry permit for South Dakota, said he did not know it is illegal to carry a firearm in New York unless the gun owner is a New York resident with a state and local concealed carry permit.

YES it was HIS responsibility to know the laws of a state he was taking a gun to.

NO it is not Delta Airlines duty to inform him of those gun laws, nor the DUI laws, nor driving laws, nor Jay walking laws, nor any other laws not specific to getting on or off a Delta airplane.

Is Hertz, also required to inform out of state Texas travelers of the new TX laws in effect for drivers to move over a lane, or slow down to 25 MPH or less when passing ANY emergency vehicle? Or should a driver in TX learn the local laws?

baldeagle wrote:I couldn't disagree more. He was in complete compliance with federal law.

Actually, he wasn't in compliance at all. He wasn't allowed to transport it to New York and he wasn't allowed to transport it from New York.

18 USC § 926A Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Don't get me wrong, my signature line states how I feel about the New York laws. But stating he was "in complete compliance with federal law" is simply inaccurate.

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I couldn't disagree more. He was in complete compliance with federal law.

Actually, he wasn't in compliance at all. He wasn't allowed to transport it to New York and he wasn't allowed to transport it from New York.

18 USC § 926A Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Don't get me wrong, my signature line states how I feel about the New York laws. But stating he was "in complete compliance with federal law" is simply inaccurate.

Playing devil's advocate, let me assume that La Guardia was an intermediate point in the man's travel. He was somewhere else and drove into La Guardia on his way home. If, at his point of origin, he legally possessed the firearm and then traveled to LaGuardia as a part of his journey home, won't he pass the "from-to" test in the Federal law?

The reason that I ask is because this is exactly the problem that we RVers have. If I travel to NH, I must go through NY and pay to cross one of NY's bridges. The Port Authority police who man those bridges have declared the Federal standards null and void and if I were detected, I could be arrested as this traveler was. I have a similar problem in getting to PA when going through Maryland. Even though they don't have bridges, Maryland LE has been very clear that they don't recognize the Federal standards either.

I would also contend that Delta has a company policy for shipping firearms and that their employee did not know about it or the police won't have been summoned. It could be argued that unless Delta similarly contacted authorities for every other infringement of any law, that the employee's conduct was discriminatory. Yes, I know that this part is pretty weak.

chasfm11 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I couldn't disagree more. He was in complete compliance with federal law.

Actually, he wasn't in compliance at all. He wasn't allowed to transport it to New York and he wasn't allowed to transport it from New York.

18 USC § 926A Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Don't get me wrong, my signature line states how I feel about the New York laws. But stating he was "in complete compliance with federal law" is simply inaccurate.

Playing devil's advocate, let me assume that La Guardia was an intermediate point in the man's travel. He was somewhere else and drove into La Guardia on his way home. If, at his point of origin, he legally possessed the firearm and then traveled to LaGuardia as a part of his journey home, won't he pass the "from-to" test in the Federal law?

The reason that I ask is because this is exactly the problem that we RVers have. If I travel to NH, I must go through NY and pay to cross one of NY's bridges. The Port Authority police who man those bridges have declared the Federal standards null and void and if I were detected, I could be arrested as this traveler was. I have a similar problem in getting to PA when going through Maryland. Even though they don't have bridges, Maryland LE has been very clear that they don't recognize the Federal standards either.

I would also contend that Delta a company policy for shipping firearms and that their employee did not know about it or the police won't have been summoned. It could be argued that unless Delta similarly contacted authorities for every other infringement of any law, that the employee's conduct was discriminatory. Yes, I know that this part is pretty weak.

You could go farther north and cross the Hudson where there is no toll, but then you are spending even more time in that evil empire.

My problem with this whole thing is that Delta's ticket agents are placing themselves in a law enforcement capacity (and I am sure they have been order to) by reporting the heinous crime of carrying an unloaded handgun in one's checked bag.

And since some of those agents are "gypsie" agents, that move from airport to airport as needed, it may explain similar incidents in other states.