Any topic any time. No profanity.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Mark Meckler Unjustly arrested in New York

I am not a Tea Party Patriot member but I certainly share many of the same concerns and solutions this wonderful bunch of Americans have with our government and our way of life.  The down side of the folks at the helm of the organization is they get threats on their lives and their families and many carry a firearm or have one close by to ensure a bit of protection.  Mark Meckler, our California Tea Party  and also the national leader of the Tea Party, carries and/or transports a firearm when he travels.


He has divulged that he has a permit in many states but apparently not New York.  He had the weapon, unloaded and locked in a TSA approved box and packed in his luggage.  He disclosed  this to the TSA agent (as required by NY law) and the whole terrible adventure began.  In my view, a unloaded weapon packed away in luggage placed in the hold of a plane does not appear to be a problem.  But New York, the most regulated anti-constitutional state after California, has a different opinion.  Meckler does have a concealed permit in California.

Rather than arrest people for lawful acts I think it is time for New York to stop being  what some call, a fascist state and redo their gun laws and procedures.  Is the goal to allow people to transport without fear, a weapon or as I see in this case, to use the force of government to make it neigh to impossible to do so under threat of a felony?  New York has now opened a can of worms for themselves especially with common sense gun owners in their own state.  I would expect some movement to bring the issue of the Second Amendment and it protections back from the New York dustbin and place it front and center as a right.  No jack boots from New York authorities would be needed.

HERE os the official release from Meckler attorneys

""Mark Meckler, an attorney and National Coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, who holds a concealed-carry permit from the state of California, today was charged with a firearms violation at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. While in temporary transit through the state of New York in possession of an unloaded, lawful firearm that was locked in a TSA-approved safe, he legally declared his possession of the firearm in his checked baggage at the ticket counter as required by law and in a manner approved by TSA and the airline, yet was arrested by port authority for said possession."

18 comments:

  1. Sounds to me like the world's DUMBEST lawyer and CCW holder. His country charm ain't going to sway' em in NYC. Ignorance of the law, ha? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pete,

    Under the Interstate Transfer of Firearms Act. (Title 19 sec 926a), This provision allows a citizen who is legally carrying his firearms across state lines as long as he does so properly, i.e., secured in a locked container and that possession of firearm is legal at both the point of origin and final destination. It has a “not withstanding” provision which negates any state or local laws for the purpose of interstate travel.

    With the number of laws we have on the books, the odds are the you--and everyone in the nation has broken a law this month and you don't even know it.

    It's ridiculous law. The gun was checked baggage and declared.

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, but you are wrong John. Meckler's violation of NY gun laws first took place on Dec. 11th when Meckler brought the firearm INTO NY. Meckler was in posession of the firearm until he went to leave four days later.

    The part about him having in it a lock box when he went to the airport to leave NY is not the issue.

    It's this simple... Meckler was illegally in possession of a handgun while conducting four days of business in New York City. The interstate transport provision of the FOPA requires that the firearm must be legal in both departure and arrival points of the travel. He didn’t meet this requirement so he has no recourse to Federal law.

    Meckler was caught LEAVING NY, he did not check his firearm in as required when he arrived in NY, got it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The DA for the Bronx was interviewed and he said they usually just issue a ticket if the fellow has a legal permit in another state.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Enos,

    Which Federal Law? I thought I read it's he's accused of violating NY City Law. (Perhaps I'm wrong.. Possibly it's NY State Law.)

    But if you feel that Federal Law trumps both of these...I agree. It's called the 2nd Amendment!

    Regardless, it's a bit silly to be arresting someone that declares they are transporting a firearm in checked baggage.

    Shouldn't the airlines be ensuring that 90 year-old women in wheel chairs are properly stip searched before boarding their plane?

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  6. Typo correction:

    I meant to write "...strip searched.."

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems Sheriff Royal hasn't received enough air time on KNCO lately--which likely explains the extraordinary speed he has used to withdrawn Mark Meckler's CCW permit at 4:18pm today.

    Oh I feel so much safer now.

    I just can't praise the good Sheriff's courage enough. We are so fortunate.

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  8. John,

    New York's restriction has stood the test of time, as it's been in place since the mid 1980's, so let's try to not cry about the 2nd amendment as that boat left the New York legal harbour many moons ago!

    I found it interesting that Mr. Meckler had no time for making a comment and ran off like a scared little school girl when reporters asked him about this event.

    David Smith

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't ascribe the same value to the mere passage of ~25 years this law has been on New York City's books. And other than "time" I'm not sure the law has received significant testing....certainly nothing like what is about to occur now.

    What does impress me is how easy it is for some people to allow our Constitution to be chipped away at.

    By any chance have you been following the murders of Russian journalists. One happened just the other day...and it's destroying the hard won free press they developed.

    The 2nd amendment helps protect our freedoms. So when a City law is allowed to trump the Constitution, all our freedoms and rights are suffer.

    As for Meckler not making time for reporters...he had already issued a prepared statement. Mr. Meckler is following a standard procedure used in any legal matter...a procedure made possible by the 5th amendment--but perhaps you don't like that constitutional right either.

    Do you find it equally interesting that Barack Obama rejected the congressional subpoena for Solyndra documents? Perhaps you'd describe that as a little girl pouting?

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  10. John,

    There's the "skinny" on the basis for the gun changes (Wiki):

    The Sullivan Act was developed to curb the huge increase in gun violence in 1968. It is also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.

    David Smith

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah ha ha, what happened to States Rights?

    NY's gun laws are tough as nails and unforgiving. So what in the hell was Meckler doing with his firearms traveling around in NY City and State, knowing that very act was a FELONY and grounds for loss of gun and law license? Whats he doing in hethanistic NYC anyway, that den of liberalism? Every Tea Party statement Iv'e seen says that states rights trump the oppressive power of the Federal government. Go figure! Sucks to be Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think the US Supreme Court has ruled in a couple of cases regarding guns. One n Chicago the other in DC. It appears the SCOTUS is tossing the local rules on guns because they conflict with the supreme ;aw of the land. So NYC laws may be next.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you David for that Wiki info.

    I subsequently went to Wiki and found this additional info (below) which I find relevant to this discussion.

    "Some question the constitutionality of the act, due to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the Supreme Court has only recently ruled that the Second Amendment prevents localities from enacting outright handgun bans, (See: Incorporation), the question of whether the Second Amendment provides grounds to invalidate local gun control laws like the Sullivan Act may be addressed given the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. Other critics have argued the arbitrary nature of the law violates New York State constitution protections of due process and equal justice.[8]"

    "Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile [1]. Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements."


    It's my understanding that "Carrying" is meant as "carrying on one's person".

    Had NY City Police found Mr Meckler carrying on a firearm on his hip within the City, I would concede the point.

    However, arriving at an airport with a firearm in a locked TSA certified container does not appear to meet the definition of "carrying a conceiled weapon."

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  14. Boo,

    You have several misunderstandings:

    #1) The allegations against Mr. Meckler are for a violation of New York CITY law NOT STATE LAW.

    You defame and libel Mr. Meckler when you write that he knowingly violated the law. Presumably you know that you are a defaming and libeling Mr. Meckler...and that is against the law as well -- Which makes your statement a bit ironic.

    #2) The mission statement of the Tea Party is:

    "We believe in Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Markets, Respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a government that respects and answers to the people.

    Within the Constitution is the 10th amendment which reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

    So the Tea Party supports "States Rights"--as you put it--within the context of the Constitution. Obviously, in this case, the 2nd amendment takes precedence over the 10th amendment.

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is also telling that we need to pay a fee if we want to exercise our 2ND Amendment rights.
    It also appears that the words " Shall not be infringed" has no meaning what so ever.
    Then we have the Feds whining about states crapping on their lawn when it comes to enforcing illegal immigration, but strangely quiet ( not really, we know why) about states imposing the same line of thought towards guns.
    This is NOT a states rights issue as some would like to believe. Gun laws should be the same accross the land, just like driving laws are.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Walt,you are right about the law across the country. It is an enumerated right in the Constitution. That means it is applied across the country in my view as well. Unlike abortion which is not in the Constitution, gun ownership is specifically given by the people to the people.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,

    This law was enacted in the late 1960's (I think it was 1968-1969) so I don't know if it was "designed" to go after immigrants.

    From what I understand is was to go after gun violence, and it removed NYC from being the most dangerous large city in the US, to making it one of the safest large cities as it is #138 in the current list of dangerous cities over 100K in population.

    It acheived that status in 5 years and it has consistently stayed in that place.

    I just saw this video, which is off this subject, but it seems to be "accurate" when looking at what has happened with The Tea Party, and our ideas.

    David Smith

    ReplyDelete
  18. David,

    Which video are you referring to?

    I'm inclined to agree with you that it's probably a stretch to classify the NYC law as intended for immigrants...but in reading the requirement to obtain a permit in NYC, it's almost impossible to obtain said permit if one is NOT a resident of NYC....and that may be the genesis for Wikipedia's statement.


    The problem is, that NYC requires a permit to merely possess a firearm. This is above and beyond carrying the firearm concealed on your hip. In other words, under NYC law, a permit is required to possess a firearm in your home.

    I share your interest in reducing crime. But a person that:

    A) Passed muster to obtain a CCW permit
    B) who then arrives at the airport with a firearm in a TSA certified and locked box
    C) Who then discloses said firearm while attempting to check his bags at the airline.

    ...Is not a person that is contributing to crime.

    There are a lot of ways to keep crime down, arresting people described above will have no measurable effect.

    --John Galt

    ReplyDelete

Real name thank you.