No weapons signage at airport

[Hoosier8]

Found this:

----> Litigation

John Torraco (New York). He is a law professor who moved from New Jersey to Florida. Congress enacted a safe harbor provision for people who are traveling interstate with firearms: 18 U.S. Code § 926A. He declared his unloaded and encased pistol at the airport in New York City while boarding a flight to Florida. The transportation of the pistol was in compliance with 18 U.S. Code § 926A. Nevertheless, he was arrested by a detective. He pointed out to the detective the federal law. The detective cursed and said he did not care about federal law because this is New York. The court dismissed charges against him on April 6, 2005. He filed a lawsuit in U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The defendants, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, filed their answer to his complaint on January 20, 2006. On March 14, 2006, U.S. Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak issued an order setting a discovery schedule, with depositions to be completed by end of June, and setting a conference for July 11, 2006.

Then this:

---> Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP - Eastern District Roundup May 2008

Transporting Firearms in N.Y.

In Torraco v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 05 CV 5572 (EDNY, March 17, 2008), Judge Cogan granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing §1983 claims arising from interference by the Port Authority Police with the transport of firearms pursuant to federal law.

Plaintiff Torraco is an attorney who resides in Florida and owns an Astra pistol. In October 2004 he checked into a flight at LaGuardia and advised the airline ticket agent that he was carrying a pistol in a case and wanted to check it through with his luggage. Mr. Torraco believed he was in compliance with the procedure for transporting firearms under federal law. The airline ticket agent tagged the firearm, checked it, and advised plaintiff that it was standard operating procedure to notify the Port Authority Police when a passenger declares a weapon.

Police officers asked Mr. Torraco if he had a New York license for the firearm, and plaintiff explained that federal law, 18 U.S.C. §926A, preempted local licensing requirements and allowed him to transport the firearm. The officers continued to ask if plaintiff had a New York permit or any documentation showing he was lawfully in possession of the gun. Even though a Transportation Security Administration supervisor took the position that Mr. Torraco was correct, the police officers maintained their position that the federal statute did not override New York State law prohibiting carrying firearms without a license. They arrested Mr. Torraco for possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The district attorney failed to respond to Mr. Torraco's motion to dismiss on the ground of federal preemption, and the state court granted Mr. Torraco's motion.

 

[alfahornet]

Thank you Hoosier8 for the info on this case. So, essentially there is nothing wrong with a police officer arresting you because of a local law violation even though federal law says it's ok. At least that's how I understand it. The following comes from the link provided by Hoosier8.

Judge Cogan found that Congress did not intend to confer a private right of action under §1983 for violation of §926A. The court concluded that when there is a conflict between state law and §926A, 'Congress intended to recognize enforceable rights rather than merely make adjustments to local government conduct.' Slip op. 14. But the language of the statute allowing one to transport firearms '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,' was vague and ambiguous in application, because it would require the local police to have knowledge of the firearms laws of the 50 states or accept the oral representation of the suspect. This 'vague and amorphous' language did not support a claim for §1983 damages under Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 319 (1997).
The court also dismissed Mr. Torraco's Fourth Amendment claims under §1983, finding that the police officers had probable cause to arrest him. After reviewing the facts, Judge Cogan concluded:
A police officer who finds someone carrying a gun in New York City, with no documentation, is not legally obligated to simply take the suspect's word that his possession is legal when New York law says that it is not. If the suspect can offer nothing to confirm his defense to what appears to be a clear violations of New York law, the officer is entitled to make the arrest and allow a judge or jury to determine the sufficiency of the suspect's story. Slip op. 24.
The police officers were also protected by qualified immunity because Mr. Torraco's rights under §926A were not 'clearly established.' Slip op. 26. Similarly, the court dismissed Mr. Winstanley's constitutional right to travel claim, because 'refusal to allow the transport of a firearm is not sufficiently material to infringe upon that right.' Slip op. 30.

 

[Hoosier8]

I decided to stay out of probably cause in NY because it is so convoluted that it is hard to explain.

For instance, they allow a lot of presumption in NY law. If you were in a car with 3 other people and the car is stopped and a gun found, all 4 can be prosecuted for a gun case since presumption is allowed. The charge would be something like a violent gun case. It is presumed that since you are in a car with a gun, that you could presumably use it as a violent act against a hypothetical victim. The kicker is that it would apply to all 4 occupants, whether they new the gun was there or not.

If you were stopped and a gun found, the police could report that they saw a couple of rounds rolling around on the floor. Would the judge believe you or the Police?

So the moral of the story is, stay out of New York. You could rent a car that someone had hidden a gun in, say in the trunk. If you were stopped and the gun found, you could go to jail. There are something like 3 levels of gun cases, the first carries a mandatory 15 year sentence. The lowest level, something like a year.

Almost all evidence collected by police, whether they collected it correctly or not, is usually allowed in courts since it would be up to the Judge to determine if the story the police tell is true or not. They will almost always side with the police, let's say about 100% of the time. There are police reports that they found something like 12 occupants in a house, including an 80 year old grandmother and a baby, in the same room with drugs and guns, stashed in the middle of the room. Strange people maybe, or just a report by the police to keep it all legal?

 

[bradp]

That's why I keep a crooked a$$ attorney's number on me at all times.

 

[Drail]

Well I guess I won't going into the Indianapolis airport anymore. Have to find a new job.

 

[indytechnerd]

Somewhat on topic, but I noticed something last week. At my usual branch of my bank, 5/3rd, there is the "no-gun" signage on the door. However, at the branch on 267S in Plainfield, there is no signage. I looked on both sets of doors, and on the walls between then inner and outer doors. Anyone else notice anything like that in your daily comings and goings?

 

[Scutter01]

Somewhat on topic, but I noticed something last week. At my usual branch of my bank, 5/3rd, there is the "no-gun" signage on the door. However, at the branch on 267S in Plainfield, there is no signage. I looked on both sets of doors, and on the walls between then inner and outer doors. Anyone else notice anything like that in your daily comings and goings?

My bank just says "No hats, hoodies, or sunglasses".

 

[jeremy]

My bank just has hours posted.

 

[ralphb72]

I heard back from one State Representative "I agree... and will look into this"... signed by the actual person. From the other... Standard response followed by me or one of my staff members etc.. office of..

 

[ryanmercer]

My bank just says "No hats, hoodies, or sunglasses".

That is just stupid. If they see sunglasses on me and think I"m a robber, then the stereotyping %!^@ don't need me as a customer.

 

[Hoosier8]

One of the arguments about CC in an airport isn't that you are a danger but that it would be hard for the police to determine who the problem is if a law abiding citizen draws a gun in a situation. I can see the point and it makes it harder to argue but would like a good argument against it.

With heightened security, some airports now have firing ranges for officers to practice.

IMHO, I would probably not draw unless I were directly threatened and would like to have the same freedom to defend myself, anywhere!

I am not looking for opinions, just a good argument against the above since I have been successfully corresponding with someone at the airport.

 

[AFA1CY]

It's not as much as would you need to defend yourself inside the airport as much defending yourself to, from, and in the parking lot/garage.

 

[Hoosier8]

Very good point, thanks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

One of the arguments about CC in an airport isn't that you are a danger but that it would be hard for the police to determine who the problem is if a law abiding citizen draws a gun in a situation. I can see the point and it makes it harder to argue but would like a good argument against it.

With heightened security, some airports now have firing ranges for officers to practice.

IMHO, I would probably not draw unless I were directly threatened and would like to have the same freedom to defend myself, anywhere!

I am not looking for opinions, just a good argument against the above since I have been successfully corresponding with someone at the airport.

Why is it not hard for police to determine this elsewhere?
Unless airport police are running in, guns a-blazing, shooting anyone who looks like they're holding any object (which I do not believe to be the case), they're trained to check their targets. This is why paper targets are made with stickers that can be placed over a hand that holds a cell phone that show the same hand holding a pistol, a knife, or nothing at all. If armed citizens can distinguish between who needs shot and who doesn't, why cannot police do likewise?

Note that the above is not meant in argument with you nor to "slam" LEOs but rather to provide you an "argument" to use against this ludicrous straw-man they're setting up. They've tried to use that one about schools, too... and malls... and public streets.... and government buildings....

Hope it helps.

Blessings,
B

 

[Scutter01]

That is just stupid. If they see sunglasses on me and think I"m a robber, then the stereotyping %!^@ don't need me as a customer.

Not that I disagree, but I think it's more so they can get a good picture of you on the CCTV as you enter the bank. I rarely (if ever) need to go inside anyway.

 

[jsgolfman]

It's for the facial recognition software.

 

[ryanmercer]

Not that I disagree, but I think it's more so they can get a good picture of you on the CCTV as you enter the bank. I rarely (if ever) need to go inside anyway.

Yeah I can't remember the last time I was inside my bank, all (I ever do is deposit (which I can do at the atm) or withdrawal (which I can do at the atm).

I'm so tempted to go to your bank, and wear a kufi, then when they ask me to remove it start shouting how they are violating my civil rights... but I don't need any drama, besides I'm not a customer there likely haha.

 

[ryanmercer]

It's for the facial recognition software.

Exactly, it's so they can invade our privacy without half of us knowing it.

 

[Drail]

For law enforcement to use that argument for the airport situation is total BS. How do they deal with identifying who to shoot anywhere else? If anyone they see with a gun might be a target then how do they prevent shooting other LEOs? (off duty/plain clothes)