H.R. 131 - Interstate Transportation of Firearms and Ammunition Bill

[Shellback]

H.R. 131 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/131?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.+131%22%5D%7D) appears to be a good thing at first glance. NRA Article link. (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150116/interstate-transportation-of-firearms-and-ammunition-bill-introduced)


U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) recently introduced H.R. 131, a bill that would more comprehensively address the interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition for law-abiding gun owners.

Current federal law guarantees the right of law-abiding persons to transport firearms between two locations where they have a legal right to possessand carry them, regardless of state or local laws that would otherwise apply. The firearm must be cased or otherwise not readily accessible. Unfortunately, anti-gun local officials are using overly restrictive state licensing laws to harass and prosecute travelers who have made every effort to comply with the law, resulting in seized guns that are sometimes never returned, delayed travel, legal fees, and sometimes even unnecessary guilty pleas.

H.R. 131 would ensure the law has the effect Congress intended when it passed more than 25 years ago. Specifically, the legislation would make clear that transportation of both firearms and ammunition is federally protected, as well as expand the protections afforded to travelers to include "staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental" to the trip. Additionally, the bill would place the burden of proof clearly on the state to show that the traveler failed to comply with the law.

[RoyGBiv]

any other activity incidental" to the trip
I read this as..... If your flight to NH is diverted to NYC, you can pick up your checked gun and take it to the hotel in NYC, while keeping in a locked case, and check it back in at the airport the next day without fear of conviction (specifically did not say prosecution) in NYC.

Especially like the damages part...


(b) In subsection (a), the term ‘transport’ includes
staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food,
fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treat-
ment, and any other activity incidental to the transport....

....

(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privi-
lege, or immunity secured by this section, section 926B
or 926C, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision
thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court
against any other person, including a State or political
subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject
to the deprivation, for damages and other appropriate relief.

‘‘(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in
an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such
other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a
reasonable attorney’s fee.’’

[Shellback]

I read this as..... If your flight to NH is diverted to NYC, you can pick up your checked gun and take it to the hotel in NYC, while keeping in a locked case, and check it back in at the airport the next day without fear of conviction (specifically did not say prosecution) in NYC...
That's how I'm reading it.

[GardoneVT]

Can we get a veto-proof majority?

[RoyGBiv]

Can we get a veto-proof majority?

Slip it in as an attachment to some other bill.

And while we're at it, we really need to change five words in the GFSZA....

18 USC 922 q/2/ii
Existing:

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located
Change to:

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm possesses a licensed recognized by the State in which the school zone is located

[RoyGBiv]

FWIW.... https://morgangriffith.house.gov/contact/contactform.htm


Dear Mr. Griffith,
Thank you for introducing HR131. I will encourage my Representative, __________________, to support this Bill.

I was hoping to ask for one clarification and make one suggestion.....

Clarification: Does the language "any other activity incidental to the transport" cover the following situation?

.... I am flying from TX to NH with my handgun in my checked baggage. My flight is diverted and lands in NYC, due to weather problems. I am stuck in NYC until the following day....

Today, if I were to pick up my luggage and check in to a hotel, I would be in violation of NYC laws. When I return the next day to the airport and re-check my handgun, I am certain to be arrested.

Secondly, together with the travel protection HR131 would provide, I would like to suggest that you consider amending HR131 to include a five-word change to the Gun Free School Zones Act that would protect concealed carry license holders traveling outside of their home State. As of today, a concealed carry license holder from Texas would be in violation of 18USC.922q/2/ii if they traveled through a school zone (nearly impossible to avoid) in any State outside Texas.

18 USC 922 q/2/ii currently reads as follows:
..... if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located

I would very much like to see this language changed to:
....(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm also possesses a license recognized by the State in which the school zone is located

Thank you for your consideration.

[GardoneVT]

Slip it in as an attachment to some other bill.

And while we're at it, we really need to change five words in the GFSZA....


While we're talking changes, there'd have to be a legislatively mandated consequence for every incident , such as an automatic demotion for any Cheif of Police of the department which arrests a traveler.

Otherwise, the antis on the East Coast would take their chances risking a lawsuit " for the children" , knowing most travelers don't have the resources to spare to file a legal case far from home. How many people got jammed up before George Revell sued the NJPA police?

[TR675]

You mean like this?


(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privi-
lege, or immunity secured by this section, section 926B
or 926C, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision
thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court
against any other person, including a State or political
subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject
to the deprivation, for damages and other appropriate relief.

‘‘(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in
an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such
other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a
reasonable attorney’s fee.’’

The Feds can't directly force the resignation of a state or local official.