Moving to AZ from Or what do I do with my GUNS? [Archive]

chadbag

08-01-10, 06:38

It is not supposed to be. Federal law allows travel (guns locked in cases not accessible from the passenger compartment). However, that does not mean it cannot be a problem (that eventually sorts itself out). Have copies of the Fed law with you, drive the speed limit or at least don't stick out, and make sure all the guns are locked in cases not accessible from the passenger compartment.

You can also think about driving through Oregon to Idaho and down through Utah and into AZ if you are really concerned. Pretty drive.

platoonDaddy

08-01-10, 07:26

You can also think about driving through Oregon to Idaho and down through Utah and into AZ if you are really concerned. Pretty drive.

+1 For sure this will keep you out of harms way.

CCK

08-01-10, 07:34

I drove the AZ, UT, ID, MT, ID route to Washington a couple summers ago.
It is incredible beautiful.

Chris

Dos Cylindros

08-01-10, 09:04

Rohardi

08-01-10, 09:17

this is from the NRA's website

http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=60

Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

chadbag

08-01-10, 09:19

Being a CA, cop I will say that were it me who contacted you I would certainly take no action. Now to the letter of the law, I suppose you would be in violation, but any cop (and I am sure there are a few) whou would hook you up after realizing that you legally owned these guns and were just passing through while moving is a worthless cop in my book.

Actually if I read the law right he would not be in violation since Federal law specifically addresses this.

Here is a summary of Federal laws by the NRA

http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/federal/read.aspx?id=60

Here is the NRA's guide to interstate transportation of firearms

http://www.NRAILA.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=59

Here is the actual US code according to Cornell Law School

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000926---A000-.html

Some other commentary can be found on this page:

http://www.gunlaws.com/GLOA_Contents.htm

Note that this law will not stop you from getting arrested and/or detained by overzealous lawmen. You should eventually get off based on the Federal Law but do you want the hassle?

You probably would have no problem but again, do you want to take the chance?

kwelz

08-01-10, 10:24

Eguns, since when does Cali live by any of the rules the rest of us do. Especially when it comes to guns.

ryan

08-01-10, 10:34

Dirk Williams

08-01-10, 10:49

Jeep, Drive south on I-5 to Eugene Or. East on Highway 58. Right on State highway 97 to Sand Creek/Beaver Marsh road 30 miles, turn left to Silver lake Or. When you reach Silver Lake, turn right onto State Highway 31 until you are about 20/30 miles east or Lakeview Oregon.

Turn left on Highway 140 East towards Dinio/Winnemucca Nv.
"You will pass "Clint Smith's, Thunder Ranch" right here after you turn onto 140 east.

There's a state highway out of Winnemucca Nv that leads you to Eureka Nv. Left turn towards State Highway93 right into Las Vagas. Cross the dam and your in Az.

Sounds long but it's actually an awesome route to travel if you don't care to deal with people. You will also see some awesome country and wild life.

Just another option that may meet your objective. Good luck

D Williams

markm

08-01-10, 10:52

Pack them Deep and drive straight through. Before Cops had national CCW, there were Phx PD officers who got arrested in Kali for having their gun. :rolleyes:

That is some Worthless shit right there.

arizonaranchman

08-01-10, 11:43

Pack them Deep and drive straight through. Before Cops had national CCW, there were Phx PD officers who got arrested in Kali for having their gun. :rolleyes:

That is some Worthless shit right there.

Wow that's beyond idiotic... Just amazing.

500grains

08-01-10, 12:32

I drove the AZ, UT, ID, MT, ID route to Washington a couple summers ago.
It is incredible beautiful.

Chris

Yes.

And stay the heck out of California with anything which would give the cops heartburn. It is not worth the risk, even though federal law says you should be ok.

Business_Casual

08-01-10, 12:40

Wow, welcome to Soviet Amerika, where you can't travel freely with your property.

B_C

pilotguyo540

08-01-10, 13:07

My advise would be to not get pulled over :D how many times have you been searched while pulled over? I have been pulled over LOTS of times and never searched. I live in Kali and have a few cop friends and family. I doubt you would have a problem. BUT, with that said, the eastern slope of the sierra's is beautiful! There is less traffic and better speed limits. Gas is usually about the same as Kali so I wouldn't bank on any savings. The central valley in CA drags on forever. It is like driving through nebraska. Come down through Flagstaff and Sedona. You won't be sorry.

PHX is not a bad town, but it takes a year for your blood to thin out and get used to the heat. Finding your way around is easy too. Good luck out there.

chadbag

08-01-10, 14:07

Eguns, since when does Cali live by any of the rules the rest of us do. Especially when it comes to guns.

Hence my suggestion to drive down through ID and UT to AZ

If caught in Kali, you may eventually get off due to Federal Law but the hassle is not worth it

Iraqgunz

08-01-10, 17:57

If going through Kali truly scares you there are better routes. Take I-84 E to the I-15 S and go through Utah. Once you are in Vegas it is about 4.5 hours to Phoenix.

You can also just pack the weapons so that they are inaccesible and make sure they are unloaded and locked. LE cannot just willy nilly search your vehicle if they stop you unless you give permission. My wife and father-in-law had to transport my stuff out of state when we moved to AZ. They made sure that nothing could be seen unless the vehicles or Uhaul was completely unloaded.

ST911

08-01-10, 18:36

The overwhelming majority of traffic or MVA contacts are brief and perfunctory. Pack well and enjoy your trip.

Folks also tend to overestimate both the ability and inclination of LEOs to detect these things. Blend in, look uninteresting, and any contact you have with LE is likely to end as fast as it starts.

ChicagoTex

08-01-10, 19:56

Folks also tend to overestimate both the ability and inclination of LEOs to detect these things.

Not if you have a concealed carry permit linked to your Driver's License (and therefore, your Vehicle Registration). Didn't keep the Illinois State Police from pulling me over just because they wanted to search me and the car for weapons carried/stored outside of IL law (they were ultimately disappointed when they discovered that I'd locked my G26 up, unloaded, in the trunk)...

Nothing bad came out of it, mind, but I did wind up getting jammed in St. Louis rush hour traffic thanks to the time delay.

ThirdWatcher

08-01-10, 21:44

I drove the AZ, UT, ID, MT, ID route to Washington a couple summers ago.
It is incredible beautiful.

Chris

+1 I have driven this route and down through Four Corners on over to Texas and it is was an enjoyable trip. This country really is beautiful when you hit the wide open spaces. :)

SteyrAUG

08-01-10, 23:11

Now to the letter of the law, I suppose you would be in violation,

And that is the problem with going through Cali.

Cops who don't even know the law. Best case scenario is a guy like DOS who won't enforce the laws he thinks exist. Plenty of cops that will, and you run the risk of not getting your guns back while they figure out things like FOPA 86.

Dos Cylindros

08-03-10, 13:20

Off topic, we need more Police like you sir, especially in Ca. In my neck of the woods they are the majority but everyone is not so lucky.

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for the compliment. For me this is a spirit of the law vs. letter of the law thing. My personal feelings on CA. assault weapons law asside, I do not view a person who is passing through my state and transporting his legally possessed firearms to another state where he is moving to be what the CA assault weapons law was intended to address. Some cops will arrest based on the letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit of the law. I always try to go with the spirit of the law, as there are many times when you would be lawfully able to arrest someone, but it would not be morally correct. Have I arrested based on the letter of the law? Yes, but as I advance in my time in service, I have mellowed out and learned to look at the larger picture (as most cops do over time).

SteyrAUG

08-03-10, 16:01

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for the compliment. For me this is a spirit of the law vs. letter of the law thing. My personal feelings on CA. assault weapons law asside, I do not view a person who is passing through my state and transporting his legally possessed firearms to another state where he is moving to be what the CA assault weapons law was intended to address. Some cops will arrest based on the letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit of the law. I always try to go with the spirit of the law, as there are many times when you would be lawfully able to arrest someone, but it would not be morally correct. Have I arrested based on the letter of the law? Yes, but as I advance in my time in service, I have mellowed out and learned to look at the larger picture (as most cops do over time).

I guess you missed it.

For the "letter of the law" please refer to FOPA 86. According to the specific letter of the FEDERAL LAW it is perfectly legal to transport these kinds of firearms through a state with laws that prohibit them if they are legal at the intended destination.

ChicagoTex

08-03-10, 17:19

I guess you missed it.

For the "letter of the law" please refer to FOPA 86. According to the specific letter of the FEDERAL LAW it is perfectly legal to transport these kinds of firearms through a state with laws that prohibit them if they are legal at the intended destination.

It could still get sticky because, as I interpret that law, you must not stop in a gun-unfriendly state for any reason for the law to remain in effect. I.e. no gas, no food, no bathroom breaks. It's certainly doable, but still not as helpful as it could be.

Iraqgunz

08-03-10, 17:25

Actually you can.

One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be arrested for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, in a locked container.[6]

An example of this would be that someone driving from Virginia to a competition in Vermont with a locked hard case containing an unloaded handgun and a box of ammunition in the trunk could not be prosecuted in New Jersey or New York City for illegal possession of a handgun provided that they did not stop in New Jersey or New York for an extended period of time.

It could still get sticky because, as I interpret that law, you must not stop in a gun-unfriendly state for any reason for the law to remain in effect. I.e. no gas, no food, no bathroom breaks. It's certainly doable, but still not as helpful as it could be.

usmcvet

08-03-10, 17:39

Sounds like an opportunity to spend your money where you are welcomed not unwelcome. If you do go through CA do as suggested and pack 'em on the bottom!

jklaughrey

08-03-10, 18:15

Just take 84 to Idaho then 15 south. Quicker and more efficient. I do this drive 4 times a year.

ChicagoTex

08-03-10, 20:09

One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be arrested for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, in a locked container.[6]

Oh, cool, didn't know that.

Dos Cylindros

08-04-10, 09:00

And that is the problem with going through Cali.

Cops who don't even know the law. Best case scenario is a guy like DOS who won't enforce the laws he thinks exist. Plenty of cops that will, and you run the risk of not getting your guns back while they figure out things like FOPA 86.

I guess you missed it.

For the "letter of the law" please refer to FOPA 86. According to the specific letter of the FEDERAL LAW it is perfectly legal to transport these kinds of firearms through a state with laws that prohibit them if they are legal at the intended destination.

Okay, late to the party again. It's not that I won't force a law I THINK exists, that law does in fact exist hear in CA. I am talking about the CA. assault weapons bill. While federal law makes it lawful, CA. law makes it clearly unlawful to possess assault weapons under all but very limited circumstances, which are not covered by the scenario described by the OP. My feelings with the law asside, I would most certainly enforce it when I thought the true spirit of the law was being violated. What the OP described is not enough for me to arrest.

Now the whole federal vs. state law thing. State law is allowed to be more restrictive than federal law. For example, the feds can say something is legal, and the state can say it's not. The reverse can not be done, such as the state can't make something legal that the feds have declared illegal. However even that does not apply in CA. CA. you can get a prescription for "medical marijuana" when it is 100% illegal under federal law, even for medicinal use. This year CA. is introducing a proposition which would de-criminalize marijuana despite what the Fed law says.

My whole point with this is, that what it written in the penal code, or US code does not really mean much. It is a guideline for those who enforce, because by the time you get to court, the judge and attorneys may end up doing whatever they THINK the law says. Thus the problem with our judicial system.

chadbag

08-04-10, 09:19

usmcvet

08-04-10, 09:34

dbrowne1

08-04-10, 09:48

The letter of the law - 18 U.S.C. 926A to be exact - says that you pass through Kalifornistan so long as you comply with the packing and travel requirements set forth therein, and any state or local laws evaporate.

There are, however, some horror stories out there of people getting at the very least harassed and read the riot act by state and local LEOs in places like MA, CA, etc. while transiting through. Most of them seem to get in trouble because they either volunteer information, or answer questions that they shouldn't answer. So I would take Skintop's advice and just pack well and keep your mouth shut. You're not doing anything illegal.

dbrowne1

08-04-10, 09:59

Now the whole federal vs. state law thing. State law is allowed to be more restrictive than federal law. For example, the feds can say something is legal, and the state can say it's not. The reverse can not be done, such as the state can't make something legal that the feds have declared illegal. However even that does not apply in CA. CA. you can get a prescription for "medical marijuana" when it is 100% illegal under federal law, even for medicinal use. This year CA. is introducing a proposition which would de-criminalize marijuana despite what the Fed law says.

You have all of this twisted around and backwards in some respects. Federal law is supreme, and sets the floors and ceilings within which a state can operate. Federal law also trumps, and in fact does "negate" or "invalidate" an otherwise valid state law when there is a direct conflict between them. In this case, there is a direct conflict between 18 U.S.C. 926A assuming its terms are met, and the CA AWB. The CA AWB loses.

My whole point with this is, that what it written in the penal code, or US code does not really mean much. It is a guideline for those who enforce, because by the time you get to court, the judge and attorneys may end up doing whatever they THINK the law says. Thus the problem with our judicial system.

If you, or any other LEO look at the United States Code and the Constitution's supremacy clause (not to mention your own state penal code) as mere guidelines that "don't really mean much," then you are the problem.

Skyyr

08-04-10, 10:46

Okay, late to the party again. It's not that I won't force a law I THINK exists, that law does in fact exist hear in CA. I am talking about the CA. assault weapons bill. While federal law makes it lawful, CA. law makes it clearly unlawful to possess assault weapons under all but very limited circumstances, which are not covered by the scenario described by the OP. My feelings with the law asside, I would most certainly enforce it when I thought the true spirit of the law was being violated. What the OP described is not enough for me to arrest.

Now the whole federal vs. state law thing. State law is allowed to be more restrictive than federal law.

No offense, but you really need to brush up on your laws before you post something that ruins your credibility.

Federal law states that states may NOT prosecute someone transporting a firearm from a state that allows it. I don't care who you think you are or what your state thinks they can do - legally, they can NOT. States can only differ in severity in accordance with Federal law. If a Federal law prohibits a state from doing something, then that state cannot differ in it's own interpretation of that law.

SteyrAUG

08-04-10, 13:22

And there REAL PROBLEM here isn't just cops who don't understand things like state vs. Federal law. The problem is most cops will arrest you based upon their misunderstanding of the laws.

And even if you get things straightened out after you've been arrested, you now have an arrest record for a weapons violation. And most people who look at that for the rest of your life (employers, cops stopping you at 3am, DAs deciding if they are going to prosecute on so future arrest that may or may not be good) will mostly assume you simply got off on it and there was probably something to it.

Dos Cylindros

08-04-10, 14:44

Dos,

You have it backwards. State law can offer you more rights, protection or freedom. State law can not offer you less protection than federal law. I belive the commerce clause comes in to play here too. States can not interfere with interstate commerce.

No I don't have it backwards. Fed law currently allows possession of assault rifles, suppressors, SBR's. CA. law forbids these items no matter what (with LE agencies, officers and Mil the exception) which is clearly contrary to Fed law. Fed law prohibits marijuana in any form, medicinal or otherwise (It's a schedule 1 controlled substance which mean no medicinal use), while CA law allows it. State law can make something illegal that fed law allows, but the reverse can not be done, even though it is in CA (and some other states). There are many examples of this, not just with guns and weed.

The thing many people don't understand about the law, be it fed or state is that it is all subject to the whims of lawers who argue, and judges who make rulings based on their "interpritation" of written law as it is applied to the circumstances at hand.

The point of my reply was just to educate the OP, that while I and probably other CA. cops would not arrest based on the circumstances he outlined, that would not protect him in every case. And the average beat cop who stopped you, found your AR or M4 would most likely not even be aware of the fed law qoted in this thread. It would not protect you from arrest in CA., but it might protect you from prosecution. Still, it would depend on the jurisdiction you got stopped in as some are more "friendly" than others.

I am not trying to argue, but I have been doing this job for quite some time and this is just the way it is. I am just trying to help the OP understand what could happen, and was a little taken back when another poster said I would not enforce a law that I "thought" existed. I would and do enforce the CA assault weapons law, not because I agree with it, but because it is my job and is what I swore to do.

Dos Cylindros

08-04-10, 14:49

you[/b] are the problem.

Clearly you missed my earlier post where I said I would not arrest or even further detain based on the circumstances that are outlined by the OP and that any cop who did is a worthless cop in my opinion. I am on the side of most in this thread in that the OP would be doing nothing wrong.

I am only trying to convey that not every CA. cop would think the same, and the OP could have some issues. I do understand the fed vs. state law rules and use them every day in real life, do you?

ETA: rant off. Really I am on the side of the op and other posting here. I just wanted to stress that the best way to avoid trouble is to avoid CA all together. Did not intend to get testy.

Skyyr

08-04-10, 14:53

I am only trying to convey that not every CA. cop would think the same, and the OP could have some issues. I do understand the fed vs. state law rules and use them every day in real life, do you?

"While federal law makes it lawful, CA. law makes it clearly unlawful to possess assault weapons under all but very limited circumstances, which are not covered by the scenario described by the OP."

Then please explain the latter comment, because he WOULD be covered by Federal law. You clearly said he wouldn't, hence the last page of comments towards you.

chadbag

08-04-10, 14:57

No I don't have it backwards. Fed law currently allows possession of assault rifles, suppressors, SBR's. CA. law forbids these items no matter what (with LE agencies, officers and Mil the exception) which is clearly contrary to Fed law. Fed law prohibits marijuana in any form, medicinal or otherwise (It's a schedule 1 controlled substance which mean no medicinal use), while CA law allows it. State law can make something illegal that fed law allows, but the reverse can not be done, even though it is in CA (and some other states). There are many examples of this, not just with guns and weed.

Yes you do have it backwards. The Federal Law specifically exempts people from state laws in the case of the interstate transportation of firearms. So the state cannot use their law to prosecute someone protected by the Fed law. Though they may try and make it not worth your while in the first place.

Dos Cylindros

08-04-10, 15:00

Then please explain the latter comment, because he WOULD be covered by Federal law. You clearly said he wouldn't, hence the last page of comments towards you.

No problem, I intended to say that him moving through CA is not covered under CA state law. Clearly without a doubt the fed law covers it. Seriously, just trying to avoid the OP running into some uneducated or badge heavy beat officer who did not know. I was also trying to illuminate people about how laws are freequently twisted by states that have their own "attitude" about such things.

Dos Cylindros

08-04-10, 15:02

Yes you do have it backwards. The Federal Law specifically exempts people from state laws in the case of the interstate transportation of firearms. So the state cannot use their law to prosecute someone protected by the Fed law. Though they may try and make it not worth your while in the first place.

Agree to dis-agree on the backwards part. Though I totally agree the fed law allows what the OP descirbed, hence my first post about not arresting for what he described. But as you so aptly stated, it does not mean someone here in CA would not give it a go.

dbrowne1

08-04-10, 15:10

Clearly you missed my earlier post where I said I would not arrest or even further detain based on the circumstances that are outlined by the OP and that any cop who did is a worthless cop in my opinion. I am on the side of most in this thread in that the OP would be doing nothing wrong.

No, I didn't miss it - I just didn't address it because the main point of your post was that many CA cops would make an arrest, and your not doing so was out of discretion and not because the law - which you rather frighteningly referred to as meaningless guidelines - says you cannot.

I am only trying to convey that not every CA. cop would think the same, and the OP could have some issues. I do understand the fed vs. state law rules and use them every day in real life, do you?

Yes, I'm a practicing litigation attorney. And it's a lot easier to sue me if I get it wrong than it is to sue somebody with sovereign immunity, so I tend to think a little more before I make up my mind and act.

bkb0000

08-04-10, 15:10

lest we all forget, we sacrificed our machineguns for the right to travel through other states with our guns. the federal law, the firearm owners protection act, was enacted specifically to prevent states from preventing people from traveling through.

theres no room for argument, Dos- your state laws are the reason we gave up our machineguns.

Dos Cylindros

08-04-10, 15:21

No, I didn't miss it - I just didn't address it because the main point of your post was that many CA cops would make an arrest, and your not doing so was out of discretion and not because the law - which you rather frighteningly referred to as meaningless guidelines - says you cannot.

Yes, I'm a practicing litigation attorney.

Well perhaps "meaningless guidelines" was a bit harsh on my part as I did not intend to convey that I had no respect for law, it was ment in jest which I realize I did a horrible job at articulating. But anway, I cry uncle, as I can see what I was trying to get accross was mis-understood (clearly my own doing).