FireArm Transitioning?

[Rich_S]

Notice the part I bolded above. The Oregon state law you posted is in direct conflict with the Federal law, and, therefore, the Federal law prevails.

Explanation: Federal law says that I have a right to transport a firearm through a state provided that neither the firearm nor ammunition is directly accessible from the passenger compartment, or absent an exterior compartment, provided that the firearm and ammunition is in a locked container.

Oregon state law states that I do not have the right to transport a firearm through Oregon unless the ammunition is in a separate container: a requirement which is not specified in Federal law. Therefore the Federal law nullifies that requirement in Oregon state law because of the conflict.

Don't believe me? Well, if that is true in Oregon, than we could simply take that one step further in a state like New York and simply further restrict the right to transport a firearm to those that obtain permits from the state to do so - and the state would only have to deny permits.

The very first words of the actaul statute in question, 18 USC 926A are: "Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof". Notwithstanding means despite.

The NRA disagrees with you.

" If in doubt, a traveler should carry firearms unloaded, locked in a case, and stored in an area (such as a trunk or attached toolbox) where they are inaccessible from a vehicle`s passenger compartment and not visible from outside the vehicle. Any ammunition should be stored in a separate locked container."


Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

The NRA disagrees with you.

" If in doubt, a traveler should carry firearms unloaded, locked in a case, and stored in an area (such as a trunk or attached toolbox) where they are inaccessible from a vehicle`s passenger compartment and not visible from outside the vehicle. Any ammunition should be stored in a separate locked container."

Link Removed

The NRA is not disagreeing with me at all.

You do understand there is a difference between the word "should" and "required", "must", "shall", "required by law", and/or "illegal not to", don't you? They could just as easily have said if in doubt a traveler should leave their gun at home and still not been disagreeing with my statement that ammo in the same container or compartment meets the requirements of FOPA.

And... let's look at the NRA's track record, shall we? In this document:
Link Removed

we find this:
"While knowingly in possession or control of a firearm, it is
illegal to enter any portion of any establishment declared off-limits
to persons below 21 years of age; commercial service airport, or
the restricted portion of a jail or law enforcement facility;"

But, what does the actual law say?
RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places

RCW 9.41.300
Weapons prohibited in certain places — Local laws and ordinances — Exceptions — Penalty.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
(e) The restricted access areas of a commercial service airport designated in the airport security plan approved by the federal transportation security administration, including passenger screening checkpoints at or beyond the point at which a passenger initiates the screening process. These areas do not include airport drives, general parking areas and walkways, and shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoints and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport. Any restricted access area shall be clearly indicated by prominent signs indicating that firearms and other weapons are prohibited in the area.

Quite a big difference between where the NRAILA says is off limits and what the law says is off limits, eh?

 

[Rich_S]

The NRA is not disagreeing with me at all.

You do understand there is a difference between the word "should" and "required", "must", "shall", "required by law", and/or "illegal not to", don't you? They could just as easily have said if in doubt a traveler should leave their gun at home and still not been disagreeing with my statement that ammo in the same container or compartment meets the requirements of FOPA.

And... let's look at the NRA's track record, shall we? In this document:
Link Removed

we find this:
"While knowingly in possession or control of a firearm, it is
illegal to enter any portion of any establishment declared off-limits
to persons below 21 years of age; commercial service airport, or
the restricted portion of a jail or law enforcement facility;"

But, what does the actual law say?
RCW 9.41.300: Weapons prohibited in certain places



Quite a big difference between where the NRAILA says is off limits and what the law says is off limits, eh?

If you enter a state that has a law regarding ammo being in a seperate container from the gun and you violate the law an LEO would arrest and charge you if he finds it. You would also likely be convicted. Why would you not just put them in seperate containers when traveling in such states?

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you enter a state that has a law regarding ammo being in a seperate container from the gun and you violate the law an LEO would arrest and charge you if he finds it. You would also likely be convicted. Why would you not just put them in seperate containers when traveling in such states?

If I am traveling from Washington through Oregon to California, when I get to the WA/OR border I unload the gun, put the unloaded gun and ammo in a locked container and put the locked container in the rear of my SUV, in complete compliance with California law, which is my destination state and in compliance with FOPA, 18 USC 926A. Why should I even bother to look up what Oregon law is? And, if I do bother to look it up, what difference does it make? And, if I am traveling from Washington to Florida, why should I bother with any state laws in between? That is exactly why FOPA exists.

And besides, no law enforcement officer in any state is going to look inside the locked case without a court issued search warrant and a set of bolt cutters anyway.