crom.a.boo

A Massachusetts Senator has authored sensible self-defense legislation that is currently before the Judiciary Committee for vote. So it still has a process to go through, but promising nonetheless... "The important things to note are that under this bill, you have the right to protect yourself and others; to protect yourself both in your home and anywhere you are legally allowed to be; and you will not be subject to a civil suit or revocation of your license to carry," Sen. Stephen Brewer (Dem., Barre) wrote in a Feb.7 letter to the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill. above from an an article about it: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/massachusetts_weighs_bill_to_e.html Text & status of the bill itself: http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S00661

Thanks 98Z5V! Excellent practical advice :hail:

It's a good question, I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps Revell could have asked the hotel if they had an on-site safe, or locked up one of the boxes in his vehicle (of course, only if that were lawful in NJ!). To be uber-safe, I suppose he could have called local and/or state LE to get their opinion on how he could lawfully store overnight. I'm sure this is not the first thing anyone is thinking about when stuck in NJ on an unexpected layover. You also remind me of something I wanted to add - not a lot of cases have come out of this federal statute yet, so I would read this particular one as an extremely conservative approach. Not that it hurts to be more safe than sorry in this context, but just because the NJ courts & the Third Circuit came down this way does not mean that other circuit courts, appeals courts, or the US Supreme Court would agree with their reasoning. The case is fairly recent, too, so it's fair to wonder whether it is still being shuffled through the appellate system. Because you raise a good point - what are you supposed to do in order to comply if you are stuck in a place through no choosing or fault of your own and yet trying to do the right thing? And, moreover, if he had slept in his car or been driving in NJ, he would have been in compliance with this provision of § 926A: "Provided, [t]hat 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." I would certainly argue, at minimum, that the hotel room was equivalent to a vehicle without a separate compartment in his circumstances.

Of course! I am happy to help - particularly since I spend most of my time in this forum gleaning knowledge, it's nice to be able to contribute occasionally!

Beautifully said, and I would like to express my eternal gratitude to your son and all who choose the path of service. I agree with Matt that one of my biggest (and only) regrets in life is failing to enlist when I had the opportunity. Congratulations and all the best.

So, I have some information, with the caveats that (1) I only am legal counsel to edge & myself, and not to the forum or any other members; (2) any info. I provide on here should NOT to be considered legal advice; (3) no information I provide may be considered to have formed an attorney/client relationship; and (4) you should always seek particularized legal advice from a local attorney specializing in the specific issue you are facing. That being said, 18 U.S.C. § 926A, provides as follows with respect to the interstate transportation of firearms: "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, [t]hat 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." Thus, the key would appear to be twofold: (1) ensuring compliance with the laws of not only your state of origin, but also your destination state; and (2) ensuring that you understand and comply with the "accessibility" issue. For example, in Revell v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 598 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2010), the court concluded that Revell was NOT entitled to the protection of § 926A under the following facts: Revell was traveling by plane from Utah to Pennsylvania, but was unexpectedly waylayed in NJ. He retrieved his checked baggage that included an unloaded firearm in a locked case and ammunition in a separate locked case. Revell stayed at a hotel for one night and was arrested when law enforcement discovered he had been at the hotel with his luggage. Revell sued, claiming that he should not be subject to arrest for violation of NJ law because § 926A preempted NJ gun laws in the circumstances. The court held that Revell was not entitled to the federal law's protection because his firearm and ammunition were "readily accessible" to him during his overnight stay. Hope this helps <dontknow>

<thumbsup> nice-looking 308, love the lazy eyes.

Welcome from Massachusetts!

And a second welcome from Massachusetts!

Welcome from Taxachusetts! Yes, I am familiar with this - however, edge broke me in with a LaRue to start, so everything from there on out seemed like a steal!

We have little hands to worry about, so at home I keep it in a biometric safe that's bolted to a dresser. At work, I have to check it into a locker at a security desk.

can i have this avatar please

Thanks for this info.! This site is the first place I've even heard of a 'gun trust', but as an attorney and gun owner you better believe I'm seriously looking into this now. Thanks again.

<thumbsup> Now, we're talking - that's a viable alternative to hoo-has and schlongs, indeed. Good stuff. ;D

:threadjack: Um, ya, that would be a negative on the lady-porn. Sorry boys. Gun-porn, good to go, and I try to be as tolerant as possible, but I have to draw the line somewhere. First, we have a young girl in the house for whom I would like to set a good example, instead of encouraging her to become a hoe-bag like her evil mother (oops, did i say that out loud? my bad). And second, like i tell Greg, he can put up pics of naked chicks as soon as he's okay with me putting up picks of naked dudes around the house. If i have to look at other chick's hoo-ha's every time I do the laundry, he's gonna have to look at some strange guy's schlongs. Fair is fair.