I just got of the phone with Bill Bowers in the Firearms Division of the BATF in Washington, D.C. In May I was in D.C. for the MMM and on the way back I was going to drive down Skyline Dr. in Va. It goes through a National Park and signs were posted that no firearms were permitted. I informed the ranger that I had firearms locked in the trunk and was denied access to the park. Recently I thought about the provisions of the FOPA that allowed the transportation of firearms between two places where you are allowed to possess them, provided that they are 'unloaded and inaccessable'. That prompted the call to BATF. Mr. Bowers informed me that the FOPA did NOT prohibit any govt entity from passing more restrictive legislation on the transportation of firearms. He read it right off the Act. This was a surprise to me. I was under the impression that FOPA protected persons travelling through areas that were not gun friendly. For example, if you lived in Pa and you were going to drive to Vt., in both locations you could legally possess a handgun, you would pass through the state of N.Y., where only residents may be licensed to possess a hangun, you would not be breaking the law. That is NOT the case. The FOPA does NOT protect you. The FOPA '86 was simply a clarification of the federal govt position on interstate transportation of firearms since they are covered under interstate commerce. It does not protect you from prosecution under any state, county, or local regulations. I did not know this, maybe you did, but I felt it needed to be posted for the other uninformed.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another discussion with BATF, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986
- Thread starter Jeff OTMG
- Start date
In actuality it appears that Federal Law is the Supreme Law of the land, rather than the Consittution. Someone please explain to me how the Interstate Commerece Clause has anything to do with the transportation of personal property that you are NOT going to sell. If the words "could sell" are any part of the explanation please stop as that is not good enough.
Every time I read a thread like this, I keep thinking:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]
I know many others are, too, but it bears repeating and making it explicit.
Grrrrrr.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]
I know many others are, too, but it bears repeating and making it explicit.
Grrrrrr.
It's another example of a law which has been passed to please people, even if there is no substance to it - feel-good legislatioin.
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz