He could nullify these laws with his pardon power.

He could nullify these laws with his pardon power.

No he can't. The President has the power to pardon violators of FEDERAL law. He does not have the power to pardon crimes under STATE law. Only the Governor of the State has that power.

I'll tell you how. She knew it was against the law and thought she would get away with it. She got caught. She rolled the dice and lost.

Now people like John Stossel come forward and cry and moan about her plight. Fuck her. She broke the law.

Fuck her. She broke the law.

Eat a buffet of dicks statist gun-grabber. Assholes like you would deny citizens the means for self-defense.

Who in their right mind would ever visit that shit-hole without being armed? Besides you I mean?

Then again as we have all known for some time - "there's just something not right with that boy"

Who in their right mind would ever visit that shit-hole without being armed?

NYC says to leave your weapon at home or don't come to visit. Their city. Their rules. Isn't freedom great?

No he can't. The President has the power to pardon violators of FEDERAL law. He does not have the power to pardon crimes under STATE law. Only the Governor of the State has that power.

Except Texas.     : )

My bad. It only makes sense since they weren't charged under federal gun laws.

She was very careful to follow all the laws and rules except one -- you cannot have a gun in NYC without a NYC license.

Well, it sounds like the law she was arrested for was having the bullets and the gun in the same suitcase which in NYC means it is a loaded gun.

She either didn't know the law or she ignored it. Sounds like she volunteered to help them find the bullets in the suitcase or they wouldn't have arrested her.

Anyway, look back at the article. That was what I read in it.

Or you two could just call each other names for the next 5 posts which might be more entertaining for both of you anyway.

Sounds like she volunteered to help them find the bullets in the suitcase or they wouldn't have arrested her.

The article is not clear. Yes, the bullets and the gun were in the same suitcase, but the TSA agent called the NYC cops over when she announced she was transporting a gun without mentioning the bullets.

So maybe she would have been charged with carrying an unloaded gun -- which turned into carrying a loaded gun when she pointed out the bullets.

Either way, she should have known better, given all the research she did. Now I'm thinking they could have arrested her when she landed in New York. I wonder why they didn't.

" NYC to Gun-Owning Tourists: Drop Dead "

Me to NYC : Eat shit MF'ers.

I would not step into your shit hole city. I was there once in 1968. Thought it sucked big time. I am sure it is much, much worse now.

The article wasn't written very well, more as a clickbait piece than an investigative piece.

Yes, the bullets and the gun were in the same suitcase, but the TSA agent called the NYC cops over....

According to NY State law, when ammunition is in close proximity to a gun, the weapon is considered a loaded gun, by definition.

The problems generally occur, as here, when departing NYC (JFK or LaGuardia). The authorities called over would not technically be the NYC cops, but the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANY&NJ) cops. PANY&NJ is a seperate entity established by interstate compact, authorized by the Federal congress. It is jointly controlled by the two states.

NYC adds restrictions on top of those imposed by the state. NY State gun licenses are generally not valid in NYC.

Unlawful possession in NYC generally carries a mandatory minimum 3½ years if one loses at trial. Plea bargaining to a misdemeanor is incentivized.

TSA explicitly advises travelers "be sure to comply with the laws concerning possession of firearms as they vary by local, state and international government."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm#p265.00

or,

http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-265-00.html

NY Laws › Penal Law › Part 3 › Title P › Article 265

15. "Loaded firearm" means any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.

In New York State, if the ammunition is in close proximity to the gun, the gun is considered loaded.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150101/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation

NEW YORK—Use extreme caution when traveling through New York with firearms. New York state’s general approach is to make the possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” illegal and then provide exceptions that the accused may raise as “affirmative defenses” to prosecution in some cases. NY Penal Code s. 265.20(12), (13) & (16).

A number of localities, including Albany, Buffalo, New York City, Rochester, Suffolk County, and Yonkers, impose their own requirements on the possession, registration, and transport of firearms. Possession of a handgun within New York City requires a New York City handgun license or a special permit from the city police commissioner validating a state license within the city. Even New York state licenses are generally not valid within New York City unless a specific exemption applies, such as when the New York City police commissioner has issued a special permit to the licensee or “the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted.” Possession of a shotgun or rifle within New York City requires a permit, which is available to non-residents, and a certificate of registration.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/firearms

Firearms

Carry On Bags: No
Checked Bags: Yes (Special Instructions)

Firearms carried in checked bags must be unloaded, packed in a locked hard-sided container, and declared to the airline at check-in. Check with your airline to see if they allow firearms in checked bags. Read the guidelines for traveling with firearms.

When traveling, be sure to comply with the laws concerning possession of firearms as they vary by local, state and international government.

- - - - - - - - - -

Ammunition

Carry On Bags: No
Checked Bags: Yes (Special Instructions)

Check with your airline if ammunition is allowed in checked bags. Small arms ammunitions must be securely packed in fiber, wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. Ask the airline about limitations or fees. Read the guidelines for traveling with firearms.

When traveling, be sure to comply with the laws concerning possession of firearms as they vary by local, state and international government.

"According to NY State law, when ammunition is in close proximity to a gun, the weapon is considered a loaded gun, by definition."

And if she had no ammunition then she was free to carry a handgun in NYC without a license? If so, then why did the TSA agent call the cops over? At the time, the TSA agent didn't know there was any ammunition.

"The authorities called over would not technically be the NYC cops, but the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANY&NJ) cops."

So when the article said "New York City cops arrested her" it was wrong?

According to NY State law, when ammunition is in close proximity to a gun, the weapon is considered a loaded gun, by definition.

That was what I gathered that she was actually arrested for.

And if she had no ammunition then she was free to carry a handgun in NYC without a license? If so, then why did the TSA agent call the cops over? At the time, the TSA agent didn't know there was any ammunition.

"The authorities called over would not technically be the NYC cops, but the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANY&NJ) cops."

So when the article said "New York City cops arrested her" it was wrong?

It does appear that John Stossel has confused the narrative and was wrong.

At the airline counter, she again told the agent she wanted to check her gun. But this time, she was told: "Wait."

"Next thing I know, they're getting ready to arrest me," she said.

Her daughter was crying, "Please don't arrest my mom!" But New York City cops arrested her, jailed her and told her she was guilty of a felony that mandates a minimum 3 1/2 years in jail.

She was at the airline counter when the authorities were called over. Generally, if you do not get past the airline counter, you do not encounter the TSA.

The airline counter authorities would have called over PANY&NJ police, not the TSA or NYPD. Inside the airport, the cops are from the Port Authority. The Port Authority has jurisdiction inside the airports (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark), and some other places, notably the World Trade Center.

The PANY&NJ may have turned her over to the NYPD, but I doubt it. I believe the arrests are made by the Port Authority police.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/nyregion/lawful-handguns-departing-for-new-york-but-unlawful-upon-arrival.html

Trouble arrives upon their return to La Guardia Airport or Kennedy Airport to fly home. The visitors repeat the procedure practiced at their home airport, presenting the firearm to a gate agent to be checked. Only this time, the gate agent calls police officers from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the airports. The gun owners are then placed under arrest.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/men-cuffed-carrying-guns-laguardia-airport-article-1.3303260

Port Authority cops arrested two men with guns in two separate incidents at LaGuardia Airport on July 4, police said Wednesday.

Officers raced to Terminal C of the Queens airport about 11:50 a.m. Tuesday when Quashaun Hagler, 30, of Minnesota, was caught carrying a .40-caliber Glock pistol and 30 rounds of ammunition, according to Port Authority spokesman Joe Pentangelo.

Roughly three hours later, cops were dispatched to arrest Timothy Green, 54, of Florida, when a .38-caliber revolver was found in his luggage, police said.

The firearm was discovered in Green’s bag as it rumbled down a conveyer belt on its way to a Jet Blue Flight to Orlando.

No injuries were reported.

Port Authority police took both men into custody without incident and charged them with weapons possession.

Generally, if you do not get past the airline counter, you do not encounter the TSA.

Even if you're claiming a weapon? The TSA doesn't get involved? Not even to check if it's properly stored?

It does appear that John Stossel has confused the narrative and was wrong.

Hmmmm. If Stossel is right you know what that means, don't you?

I assume the Port Authority cops turned her over to NYPD to be processed under state firearms laws. Doesn't seem an area of responsibility for Port Authority. And a NYC public prosecutor and judge get assigned to the case either way.

Between you and nolo contendere, these details seem awfully important.

Even if you're claiming a weapon? The TSA doesn't get involved? Not even to check if it's properly stored?

No. It is a criminal matter and the cops are called over. You never get past the airline check-in counter.

Hmmmm. If Stossel is right you know what that means, don't you?

Yes, it means the airport is really screwed up. JFK and LaGuardia are under the jurisdiction of the 1,800 member PANY&NJ police, not the NYPD. There is a violation of New York law, not the federal regulations that the TSA gets involved in, and a TSA security checkpoint should be after the check-in counter or there will be no boarding pass to check.

Between you and nolo contendere, these details seem awfully important.

Facts seem more important than fiction. YMMV. It seems unlikely that the person behind the airline counter called over an NYPD officer inside LaGuardia or JFK airport. The Port Authority cops work that beat. The police union probably finds it important. The NY newspapers report the arrests as being by the Port Authority police.

In a fully described case, an unlucky guy made it to the TSA checkpoint where he declared his firearm and was duly turned over to the Port Authority police who arrested him. TSA screeners are unarmed, not police officers, and have no authority to arrest anyone. The only TSA officials with arrest authority are Air Marshals.

Revell is quite a tale of travel mishap and misfortune.

His case for damages was dismissed on summary judgment, but it makes an interesting read.

"...the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes. What this case is about is the contours of that right - what the parameters of the right are, where the right begins and where it ends.

Those are matters for the legislators and judges and executives define, not individuals deciding for themselves.

A parallel example exists regarding freedom of speech. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Congress has had laws against speaking national secrets since the beginning. Also, judge-made common law against speaking and writing false things to induce the creation of a contract (i.e.: fraud), and against publishing malicious, damaging, untrue statements about people (e.g.: slander, libel) has been around since the beginning.

Does "Congress shall make no law..." mean that the Judiciary CAN nevertheless make such laws, through the Common Law creation practice, or that the Executive can make such laws through the regulatory process? (The courts say no.)

Does the pre-existence and application of espionage, slander, libel and fraud-in-the-inducement law mean that the freedom of speech is not synonymous with the freedom to say whatever you want to say.

Do the child pornography laws abridge the freedom of the press?

Or is it that the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" are not synonymous with the ability to speak and the ability to write, but is a smaller set of things that one can speak and write without being punished?

(Yes, that is what it means. The "freedom of this" or the "right of that" are bounded by law. The Constitution says that you can't impose laws that further restrict the existing restrictions on speech, the press and firearms.

"The freedom of..." or "the right of..." didn't START unlimited in 1789, but was already a limited set of rights and freedoms.

"...the right of the people, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes. What this case is about is the contours of that right - what the parameters of the right are, where the right begins and where it ends.

Those are matters for the legislators and judges and executives define, not individuals deciding for themselves.

Actually those matters were decided by people who signed our Declaration of Independence. Many of them had decided that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms. A reader, entitled, The Federalist Papers is replete with what many of them agreed to while in discussion concerning that basic right. Without the right to keep and bear arms, not only are you defenseless to protect your home and family from professional standing armies, but also that you have no rights to speak or write unless dictated to you by the government.

Actually those matters were decided by people who signed our Declaration of Independence. Many of them had decided that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms. A reader, entitled, The Federalist Papers is replete with what many of them agreed to while in discussion concerning that basic right. Without the right to keep and bear arms, not only are you defenseless to protect your home and family from professional standing armies, but also that you have no rights to speak or write unless dictated to you by the government.

No, those issues weren't decided. There was a set of parameters in 1789, and those were understood then. But one of the parameters was that the Constitution was to bind the Federal government, and only bind the states in very limited ways identified in the Constitution.

The Founders thought they were taking 13 independent little nation states in a confederation and converting that into a federation, a closer and more perfect union of nation states, not a dissolution of them into a unitary state.

Local law and order, libel law, murder law - all of that - was a matter of state law, and the Constitution as understood in 1789 does not govern state law at all. The federal government, for example, could not establish a national religion, but the states were free too, and generally already had them. The disestablishment of the state religions was not driven by constitutional law but by politics.

So, as originally understood in 1787, the federal government had no power to restrict personal or state militia firearms. The states, however, did not cede their power to legislate regarding arms, who could carry what, etc.

This person in LaGuardia was arrested for violating a local law under the government of New York. It's not a federal matter but a state matter, a matter well within the purview of state power in 1789.

So, what you need to get the Second Amendment in play here is for the Supreme Court to definitely incorporate it into the body of constitutional law that also restricts the states.

And then, having done that, you need to recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can constitutionally set parameters on private firearms ownership (banning things such as automatic weapons and grenade launchers from private use and possession), so it will be a question as to whether states are limited by the limits on federal gun regulation, or if the states have greater latitude.

So far, the states have much greater latitude, as they did in 1789.

So, what you need to get the Second Amendment in play here is for the Supreme Court to definitely incorporate it into the body of constitutional law that also restricts the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Halbrook

Nope, because what you have in the Supreme Court and even lower US District Courts (such as the Ninth Circus) are (some of them) turncoats.

Turncoats or not, they have the power to do what they have done.

The electorate has to be persuaded to a different point of view.

The Founders thought they were taking 13 independent little nation states in a confederation and converting that into a federation, a closer and more perfect union of nation states....

You undoubtedly state the intent correctly, but they actually dissolved the existing loose union of 13 states and formed a new union of 11 states. When the new government was formed, Rhode Island and North Carolina were not part of it.

The Bill of Rights passed through the congress of eleven states.

Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789.

North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until November 21, 1789.

Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until May 29, 1790.

The right to keep and bear arms was a limited right, brought forth from the colonists existing right to keep and bear arms under English common law.

The right to keep and bear arms was a limited right, brought forth from the colonists existing right to keep and bear arms under English common law.

All rights are by their nature limited. Any unlimited right would be the thread that rapidly unwound the state and caused it to collapse.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where have I ever said otherwise?