I've described the process several times, in threads you've participated in. However, I'll go over it again. I've flown to MN, FL, NC, TX, and SD with at least one handgun. The process is simple: 1. Walk in, and yell "I have a gun!" 2. Open the box with the gun and run really hard towards the checkout counter. 3. Yell "Gun, gun gun!" at the TSA agents. Nah, just kidding. 1. I have an aluminum case with two spots for locks. I walk into the airport with the case locked. No magazines in the gun, and ammo is in its original container. 2. I wait in line at the counter, and tell the airline agent "I need to declare a firearm(s)." 3. Airline agent gives me a tag and form to fill out, and calls over TSA. 4. I declare the gun is unloaded, put the slip inside the box attesting to that fact, and put the orange tag on the outside 5. I lock the box and I retain the key 6. TSA takes the box, and sends it back to luggage. 7. To get back my gun, I go to luggage.
Yeah, how bout if you are going to NYC? Dude, when I talk about bringing a gun to airport, I'm talking about people who just put them in their suitcase.
I don't go to shit holes like NYC. Last time I was there was enough - the entire city smells like a urine hole for hobos.
In Florida you can so long as it is public property I think you are right. It's a matter of percentages. Look above. Looks like this arrest happened in September. It's just being reported now. I think it's a case of the media harping on this issue for some unknown reason. First you look up the FAA rules. Then you look at the particular airlines website to see if they have any additional restrictions or conditions. Generally it goes like this (assuming that you know it is legal to have a firearm in your destination city). Take your luggage to the ticketing counter (no curbside) As they are giving you your ticket you discretely tell the agent that you have an item you need to declare. He/she asks if it is a fire arm. You reply yes. Agent hands you a dayglo orange or red card to fill out, it goes in your suit case. Agent asks to inspect your luggage. You open up your luggage (or the inner case if you have the firearm contained in one) (see FAA regs for how it is supposed to be encased and secured). Agent inspects to ensure that it is unloaded and that the ammo is in an approved container. Agent takes possession of your bag, tags it and then they and you walk over to the TSA baggage screening machine. Bag goes through the machine, TSA screener tells you it's good to go, you take off to your airplane. Fly. Pick up baggage and leave the arriving airport.
I only fly there with a gun. I would consider becoming a test case, were I approached by the NRA or GOA.
Ah, okay. I hadn't looked at the original date. But one man's "unknown reason" is another's "pattern of behavior." At the very least, gun ownership organizations like the NRA might consider an email to members suggesting "Know the law before you go there."
It's New York City's laws that are the anomaly. There are very few areas left in the country where a person can't lawfully bring a firerarm. Now that the individual right to keep and bear is a matter of settled law, NYC's restrictions aren't going to hold up, either for people passing through, or for its residents. It's New York that's going to have to change.
They all do, except where the powers are reserved for the federal government as stated in the constitution. So this is no more a states right issue than is gay marriage, interracial marriage, segregation, or Jim Crow. IOW that dog don't hunt.
It's interesting to read this thread and watch how traditionally liberal-minded posters play games with constitutional rights here. If we were talking gay marriage and the South, for instance, they'd be blasting away full force and insisting the "rednecks" stop their Bible-thumping or some such. Instead, since it's just some simple gun-grabbing, people trying to exercise one of their fundamental and explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights freedoms are suddenly dismissed with a "they should've checked the local laws" and "state's rights trumps the Constitution." Fascinating
So, New York City is what, the 58th state? Seriously though, I guess the better question should be, "Who needs the bill of rights anyway?" right, Margaret?
NYC ain't gonna change. Not with Bloomberg in charge. The man sets up anti-gun sting operations in other states! How the fuck is a mayor justified in setting up stings in other states?
Yanno, several WFers have indicated that they suffer from tinnitus. You should show some respect. Now, go ahead and do what you do best.
If only the voters would remember that the next time they decide "Government should be run like a business. We should throw out all the politicians and elect a businessman!"
NYC will change, just as Chicago did under Dickhead Daley. The issue is only how many millions of taxpayer dollars the city will waste trying to defend the indefensible gun laws they have.
How is interpreting a line in the Constitution (correctly in the opinion of the majority) making a law?????
Well, the Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia," and unless and until there's a subsequent amendment saying otherwise, every gun owner in the U.S. should be required to wear a uniform, undergo regular training, and report for some sort of National Guard duty at least once a year. Instead, you guys got a SCOTUS ruling to say "Nah, just kidding!" Which, considering your disdain for SCOTUS on most other issues, is rather quaint.
Irrelevant as it has already been ruled that it is an individual right and not a collective right. That's two. Try again. Damn my slow posting habits. There was #3. So in the end you have nothing. Thanks for playing.
Yes, please, the militia argument died a decade ago amid sensible interpretations of the context of the times it was written. "Well regulated" meant well-supplied or well-trained, and "militia" was always, of course, The Poeple in total, not the National Guard (which, IIRC, didn't exist at the time).
And "the context of the times" is the same argument that lets you play with ever more powerful toys. Again, "SCOTUS sucks unless it does what I want."
You're assuming the "A well regulated militia" part is conditional to the "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" part.
If by "does what I want" you mean "fulfilling their one reason to exist and upholding constitutional rights," then yes. In fact, because I'm a generous guy I'll go one further. They don't suck when they uphold my rights, whether those rights are recognized anywhere in the legal code or not.
