A 52-year-old woman with a permit to carry a handgun in Florida could face up to 10 years in prison after being arrested in Jersey City while attempting to board a ferry to Ellis Island while carrying a gun, authorities said.Elizabeth J. Griffith, of Daytona Beach, was arrested by U.S. Park Police on July 14 and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. She is scheduled to appear in Hudson County Superior Court on Aug. 12, Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Gene Rubino said today.The Florida permit to carry a handgun is not valid in New Jersey. Griffith was cooperative when arrested around 12:30 p.m. at a screening station prior to boarding the ferry, Rubino said, adding that the gun was in a holster. She was issued a summons and released on her own recognizance.
Source: Fla. woman with carry permit faces 10 years for bringing gun on Statue of Liberty trip | NJ.com
Via the Gun Writer.
Although we have reciprocity with equally gun-friendly many states, some others remain openly hostile to the Second Amendment. It is your responsibility to figure out which is which prior to any trip you make.
Let’s hope this lady gets a fair shake. The fact she is not in jail or had to post bail shows she may have lucked out.
7 thoughts on “Know the laws as well as your gun. Perhaps even better.”
It’s not just women from Florida. http://www.metro.us/news/pistol-packing-texas-tourist-is-really-pissed-about-ground-zero-arrest/zsJohc—OnX87erN4uCEQ/
Seem “My hubby will not let me leave home without it” does not fly at Ground Zero.
Anything in NY/NJ is a guaranteed arrest… And loss of the weapon at a minimum, and a good probability of a felony conviction on their record.
You beat me to it.
She went to jersey – her own mistake.
They’ll fry her to make a point out of her.
I live in NYC. Even a premises permit (yes, just owning a gun in your own home, your 2A right) is a huge pain in the ass to get, and VERY expensive (handgun is 340 + 90some for fingerprint fees). Also, your name is now in their database, so don’t be surprised when they come looking at you over nothing.
I met a girl once in a bar, who was living in the East Village, and was stupid enough to move here from North Carolina with her handgun. She told me a story about how it was legal, because her apartment was broken into, and she held the guy at gunpoint until the cops came, and apparently the would-be burglar as well as this girl never showed the cop her gun, nor mentioned it to the cops. Allegedly.
There was a long and drawn-out argument where I tried to explain to her that if the cops had found out she had a gun, and then subsequently found it in her possession, she would have been arrested right along with the guy, and facing a lengthy prison sentence, as her gun was unregistered. This idiot girl seemed to think that what she was doing was NYC legal, when it was most certainly NOT, as the gun was not registered with the city. This girl literally ended up hating me because I was trying to save her from the graybar hotel.
They threaten 3.5 years mandatory minimum, and I’ve read literature that these offenses often get pled down, to 6 months or so. Probably in Rikers.
You can’t even FLY through this city with a firearm without being subject to the dogshit laws of this place. I don’t know who the lawyer is who says he can get you out of trouble, but he must A) know the right people, B) be very expensive, with C) uninformed clients.
Sorry for the lengthy rant, just trying to help anyone out who didn’t know.
TL:DR – Don’t be an idiot, never bring your legal weapons near NYC.
Flying through NY/NJ with firearms is actually hassle-free IF you check your bag containing the firearm straight through from departure to destination. If forced to lay over do not touch the bag – let the airline move it. If the airline tells you that you must claim your bag and transfer it yourself it’s better to leave it and on arrival at your destination report it as lost – and be sure to report that the lost bag contains a firearm.
The risk of missing a connection and having to deal with the authorities would scare me WAY too much to try this.
Every State recognizes every other States’ driver licenses, as well as every other States’ marriages (the creation of which was State-licensed). Under what principle are these licenses recognized across State lines? The “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution? If there is a principle, why does it not apply to firearms licensing? If there is no principle, can a State stop recognizing driver licenses issued by other States, and arrest people who drive into that State? (This is the exact analog of what happens to people with concealed carry licenses from other States who enter NY and NJ.)
More questions (that probably don’t have logical answers):
How does a person lose some of his or her rights (say, the right to property – firearms are a class of property) merely by traveling from one State to another (or from one local jurisdiction to another within a State)? Wasn’t that settled in Dred Scott? (Scott was not about slavery, Scott made no claim that being held as a slave was unlawful. His claim was that as property he could not legally be brought into and held in a State in which slavery was illegal. According to Scott’s complaint, his owner, having done so, should have lost his right to hold him as property. The court disagreed, and said that every property owner has a right to travel with his property. That is the essence of the Dredd Scott decision. Don’t let anyone tell you it upheld slavery – it did no such thing because the lawfulness of slavery wasn’t a question before the court.)
Where is the due judicial process that causes this loss of rights? (All laws are passed via legislative process and can’t affect anyone’s rights because they are not the “due process of law” guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This is why laws that infringe upon rights are declared “unconstitutional” by courts – they take rights by a method (legislation) other than the only constitutionally-approved method of taking a person’s rights, due judicial process.) (Although the State citizens may have acquiesced to the loss of rights via legislative fiat, citizens traveling to or through that State did not agree to the loss. They should retain their right to due judicial process before losing any of their rights.)
The way it works today, people are forced to choose between travel to or through certain States, and exercising their right to arms. If a person has both a right to travel and a right to arms, how can the traveler be forced to give up one right in order to exercise the other? (There is a principle of law here that says “no citizen can compelled to give up one right in order to exercise another,” but it happens all the time.)
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.