Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ...

This is a discussion on Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; going on at: The Volokh Conspiracy The Limits of the Federal Law Letting You Travel With a Locked, Unloaded Gun .... the Torraco panel holds ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ...

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ...

    going on at:

    The Volokh Conspiracy The Limits of the Federal Law Letting You Travel With a Locked, Unloaded Gun

    ....
    the Torraco panel holds that any interference with § 926A doesn’t lead to liability for the police, because of the difficulty the police would face figuring out the law.
    ....
    So police officers seem to have nearly unlimited authority to arrest and otherwise interfere with people who are exercising their § 926A rights, with no threat of damages liability or anything else deterring such arrests or interference.
    ....
    BTW -- one of the commets, which I focussed on was:

    So, a law enforcement officer, who’s job is to know the law, can get off with an “ignorant of the law” excuse in this situation, although the public can’t. And, they can assume that the citizen is transporting illegally, with no evidence or probable cause otherwise. All while the citizen is exercising what has been decided to be a right. As a non-lawyer, that just seems like bad judging.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    another case of the police have all the power and rights and we the citizens don't have squat
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  4. #3
    Member Array gilliland87's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    phx, az
    Posts
    328

    unforunantly

    It seems to me in this instance that it will take a test case to push this up through the rank and file of the courts to set the case law straight. IANAL but that is my gut feeling.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,071
    This is why I'm working on getting a booklet (or several) of all applicable state and federal statutes to keep in my vehicle at all times. I'm also working on memorizing important parts of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Sadly, that final analysis is correct.

    And yes police are personally protected for same as related to error when the job.
    The argument being that if not then they would simply choose to not do the job/any of the job for fear of reprisal/prosecution (accountability). I have been told this direct to my face as by police during two different Citizen Police Academy courses from two different agencys.

    In America you are functionally guilty upon detention until innocence can be established, and if not then subsequent to formal arrest you have right to accept or fight charges as they are made...Or to cut a deal/plea.

    Thereafter it's on you to prove your innocence as beyond a shadow of a doubt against that of a prosecutor as beyond reasonable doubt, reasonable being vaguely defined by locality and case type/situation per the view of your average neighbor & juror.

    Oh and if any mistakes were made along the way if they are not found out in 'discovery' by your defense team, even if they are known by the police and/or prosecution, then well you always have a second chance toward re-trial under appeal, subsequent to sentencing and being imprisoned and having your name besmirched in the press making it that much less possible to get a 'fair' and impartial trial by jury.

    If your family, relatives, friends, church and 503c charitable donation 'criminal defense' fund can afford as much, the first time muchless a second.

    - Janq
    Last edited by Janq; July 7th, 2010 at 07:01 PM.
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    And the same problem probably exists, but to a lesser extent, with LEOSA. The same argument goes that you really can't expect the locals to necessarily know about it.

    We need a strong nationally recognized CHL with teeth, or a strong Federal statute that indisputably applies across all states in the US and all jurisdictions.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Problem was/is that in particular the NY/NJ Port authority has been the main culprit of violating FOPA, and it seems they know it and don't care. I remember one of the Port Authority officers saying they've arrested 100 or so people for firearms violations with most claiming FOPA protection.
    Instead of detaining and then having a mechanism to check the person's story, they're willing just to throw them in jail and let a judge deal with it later. With this ruling, there's not much incentive for them to do that, it's just a waste of their time.
    With the 3rd circuit reaching a similiar conclusion in the Revell v. Port Authority case, that means travelers stay away from NY/NJ airports w/firearms. Hopefully this can bolster national reciprocity when the new congress goes into session next year.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Interesting CC discussion with SAPD
    By Texas solo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 19th, 2010, 10:48 PM
  2. discussion at Walmart
    By TedBeau in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: February 16th, 2010, 11:16 PM
  3. Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 30th, 2009, 05:04 PM
  4. Interesting range discussion
    By bigiceman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: December 1st, 2008, 10:08 AM
  5. Interesting 2A Discussion Last Night
    By mhiggi02 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2008, 02:27 PM

Search tags for this page

18 u.s. code 926a
,

18 u.s.c. 926a

,
18 u.s.c. ? 926a
,

18 u.s.c.a. 926a

,

18 usc 926a

,
18 usc ? 926a
,
18 usc ?926a
,
18 usca 926a
,
18usc926a
,
federal law 18 usc 926a
,
federal law 18-926a
,
usca 926a
Click on a term to search for related topics.