My grandfather was a writer and journalist for most of his adult life and had rather a way with words. One of my favorites was the phrase undulating lie. As far as I know, he invented the term and I have never heard anyone outside our family use it, but it really is quite descriptive. An undulating lie is when someone tells you something that is factually true, but so misleading as to constitute a lie. Like gawker.com saying…

Mark Meckler (pictured) is the co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots and a big shot national Tea Party Leader. He supports Second Amendment rights, if you know what we mean. What we mean is he has been arrested for trying to carry a gun on a plane.

Um, no, that’s a lie. He didn’t try to “carry a gun on a plane” as if he were walking down the street. A street other than one in, you know, New York City.

What actually happened was that Mr. Meckler walked up to the Delta agent and, in complete compliance with FAA regs, presented his luggage which contained an unloaded Glock in a locked case. As required by the FAA, he informed the agent of the weapon whereupon the agent called the Port Authority police and Mr. Meckler was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a license. Did you catch that? Having an unloaded weapon in a locked case, inside a suitcase is considered “carrying concealed.”

But there’s more to the story than that and here is where things get interesting. Back in 1986 Congress passed and Reagan signed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which, among other things, contains what is called the Safe Passage Provision. Basically what the Safe Passage Provision says is that if you are traveling from someplace where you may lawfully possess a firearm to someplace else where you may lawfully possess a firearm, as long as the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container, you are not subject to the firearms laws of the locales you pass through.

Prior to enactment of this law if you were flying from Virginia to Vermont for some hunting and your plane had to make an emergency landing in Massachusetts, the moment the plane touched down, you became a criminal unless you had a Mass. license for your weapon(s).

Unfortunately, this remains the state of affairs in New York, despite F.O.P.A. and the Safe Passage Provision. Going back almost a decade, the District Attorneys in several New York jurisdictions have flat out stated that they are not going to obey federal law (although I’ll bet they’d enforce the Hughes amendment’s “new machine gun” ban) and, according to the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, these prosecutors would actually rather prosecute these mala prohibita “offenders” than violent criminals.

However, I was talking about gawker.com before I got sidetracked, and having started out with undulating lies, Mr. Nolan quickly devolves into outright libelous character-assassination:

What was Meckler’s reason for toting a gun around America, legally or not? ‘Because he gets threats.’ For example, those bitches at Delta threatened to have him arrested for trying to carry a gun on a plane. Can you imagine? Just wait until Mark Meckler gets his gun back. Then we’ll see who’s boss.

Nice…but hardly unexpected. It’s a fairly typical ploy of the antis; when they don’t have any actual facts on their side (which they rarely do) they just start smearing the people they are prejudiced against in the hopes that by slinging enough mud no one will notice their utter paucity of hard information and logic.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

41 COMMENTS

  2. Thank you. Saved me the trouble of typing up a response to the previous post. I know a guy who also got hit by this. He was eventually acquitted, but just going through the process is punishment enough. Punishment for doing nothing more than complying with the law.

  3. If they have to resort to lies to make their point, they’re on the wrong side. You’d hope that at some point, if they have anything resembling a conscience, this would dawn on them.

  4. The gun laws in NYC are moronic without a doubt.

    But Meckler is an idiot. He’s not covered by the safe passage law, because he wasn’t traveling through NYC, he was staying there. As gun owners, we are all responsible for checking on laws before we travel. For all his “tea party” BS, Meckler is just another politician who thinks the laws don’t apply to him.

    • “For all his “tea party” BS, Meckler is just another politician who thinks the laws don’t apply to him.”

      Are you sure he isn’t just one who thinks that *some* laws shouldn’t apply to *anyone*?

  5. C’mon, that’s just snarky sarcasm on the end there. Havn’t you noticed some of the things written about me on this site?

    About the rest, isn’t it the gun owners responsibility to know what the laws are and to follow them to the letter. Isn’t it unfair blaming to place the focus on the unfair and non-sensical (in your opinion) laws rather than the gun owner?

    • Except that snark is based on a lie, which is that he was trying to carry a gun on to the plane. He was trying to check his gun, just like you’re supposed to.

      As for the law, if he didn’t keep the gun in the city while doing business there (i.e. his hotel was out of town) and he was just passing through with it, he would be covered by the Safe Passage Provision. Assuming for the moment that’s the case, then he did follow the law to the letter. It’s New York who’s ignoring the law.

    • You missed the “when they don’t have facts” part. See, we always have facts, logic, and truth on our side, whereas you don’t. When you present your made-up and fantasy world arguments, we respond with facts. See, we don’t “resort” to slinging mud at you and your ilk because we don’t have facts. We present facts, then sling mud because you deserve it…and it’s still the truth.

  6. One more item to add to the all ready long list proving police are more than willing sell out their fellow countrymen to just to meet “performance standards”. Wont it be even better when 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT or other units are used as a police force?

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
    “Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks…But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom…After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one… The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment… In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone… They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios… The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them… “I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home … and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.” While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.”

    If you thought cops were bad, how about when you have to deal with a PTSD’d soldier doing crowd control? They’ll be more than willing to “take care of” you and your family. Especially when their combat training is applicable, and the rules of engagement domestically are much lower than they are in Iraq.

    • Matt, your post is conspiracy theory central, and quite offensive. Allow me to elucidate you.

      1: IN CASE OF NATURAL DISASTER. You know, like in Katrina, where the regular military disobeyed the unconstitutional order to collect all guns, while the National Guard and police carried it out.

      2: PTSD’ed soldiers? Rules of engagement? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? The rules of engagement state that you have to not only see a threatening weapon, it has to actually be firing at you, your fellow soldiers, or civilians in the area in order for you to start shooting back. The standard for a soldier to initiate violence is far higher than for a civilian.

      Why don’t you drag your misplaced aggression off somewhere else, cool your heels and stop trolling conspiracy websites.

      • 1- Natural disaster is only one reason, and that is a red herring, even if military style assets like helocopters are needed, they call up the National Guard, not federal troops.

        2- So no troops have PTSD, especially when they get back from a combat zone? Yes those rules of engagement you listed sound like standard rules for overseas. In Iraq, often your not allowed to shoot back if there a large number of civilians around. Problem is here domestically, cops get to shoot you if you have a cell phone in your hand, you dont have to shoot at them first or even be armed.

        So where is your Oath Keeper badge Tarrou?

    • Clearly, you have severe mental issues. US Northern Command has a component called Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS). JTF-CS supports domestic Agencies responsible for disaster relief. When you here that soldiers are sent to fight forest fires they come from units assigned to this JTF. A brigade combat team could not successfully police a major city let alone the entire country.

      Back in 2008 lunatics like you were proclaiming that President Bush had brought back 3 or 4 BCTs from Iraq to stage a coup. It was nonsense then and nonsense now.Frankly,

      I think it’s time for Robert to put you in the penalty box for a while. Something like allowing you to only post gun specific comments for a specified period of time. Posts like this are just the thing antis are looking for on guns sites.

      • National Guard is typically used for disaster relief, and your guys are ignoring others reason listed such as “civil unrest and crowd control”. Troops have been used countless times in the past such as the 1970 Kent State University Protests or the 1932 WW1 Bonus Protests or the integration of the school system in Alabama in the 1950s.

        American soldiers will be more than willing to “take care of” their fellow countrymen, just like they did in the past. In 1932 they shot, bayoneted and used a Arsenic based chemical weapon on WW1 veterans and their families who were peacefully protesting in a way similar to the OWS protests. Even when directly ordered to stop, by his Command and Cheif Pres. Hoover, Gen. MacArthur continued his assault because he thought the protesters were communists. Brutaly punishing the veterans not for their actual political viewpoint, but merely because he suspected they were.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#U.S._Army_intervention

        Just a FYI, but if the anti’s want anything they can easily visit Stormfront and get much better material. Your just a ex-LEO or ex-mil or similar (parent of a soldier?) who wants to maintain the fallacy that the troops support their country rather than corporate interests. So you support first amendment rights and other american ideals, just not when that speech is offensive to you?

        • You left off George Washington leading the Army to put down tax protesters during the Whiskey Rebellion way back in 1789

      • Yes, I know it was the Ohio National Guard as I was about 14 or 15 at the time.
        Friend was in Air Force Security and was taught in demonstration and riot control to ” Make them piss and bleed in Techni-Color”. Don’t think things are going to get any better with the Federal Military involved in Civilian affairs. I can see things turning out as in Latin America.

  7. So let me get this straight..Meckler went to the counter to check his firearm according to FAA regs, and the Delta agent took it upon herself to enforce local gun laws KNOWING that he was CHECKING his gun according to regs, onto a plane which was LEAVING TOWN? What a Bitch!

    • Yeah, didn’t you see the comment above, it was New York that broke the law.

      I love the way you responsible guys are so quick to put the blame elsewhere when one of you messes up.

      • mikeb – We put the blame on the politicians whom, in violation of their Oaths of Office, not only refuse to “…support, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America….”, but seem to enjoy using it as so much Charmin.

        I’ve traveled through Nazi York several times, will likely do so in the future, and for damned sure will be armed, as it is my RIGHT. INALIENABLE. UNTOUCHABLE PERIOD.

        As a law-abiding citizen, I have no moral OR legal obligation to obey an unjust edict falsely promoted as “law”.

        You, sir, seem to be just too damned ignorant to understand that fighting for Liberty is never wrong, and these “governments” have gotten WAY out of control. If they will not obey the Law of the Land, tell me why I should obey their “laws”?

  8. Bruce, your Virginia to Vermont hunting trip example wasn’t exactly the reality. You could have been charged, but being charged with a crime isn’t a significant hurdle. Being convicted of one is slightly higher however. I have a criminal case out of New York, oddly enough, directly on point for you:

    The People of the State of New York v. Newton, 72 Misc. 2d 646, 340 N.Y.S. 2d 77 (1973).

    The defendant, William Newton, in that case was on a flight from the Bahamas to Luxembourg on the night of December 7, 1972 with his .38 revolver. He became unruly and it was revealed that he was armed. The pilot was notified and made the decision to land the plane at JFK airport in NYC. Mr. Newton was disarmed prior to landing, but nevertheless arrested and charged under NY Penal Code for having an unlicensed firearm. He challenged his detention and the court ruled as a matter of law that he had committed no crime under the NY Penal Code because he had not committed a voluntary act when he and his firearm were brought to NYC. The plane being diverted to NYC was out of his control even though it was on account of him.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8369948530003146564&q=72+misc.+2d+646&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33

    Now, The People v Newton is a case out of NY Supreme Court which is the lowest court in the state not the highest, so it carries less precedential value. I recognize that you used Massachusetts as your state, and there may or may not be a similar case out of Massachusetts, I simply don’t have the time to look.

    I don’t know anything about the charges brought against Mark Meckler, but I do know that if he was staying in NYC, any argument that he tries to make under the section 926A safe harbor will be considerably weaker.

    • The facts in Newton are as you stated, and the result was that Newton had no choice. He was forced into New York, where possession was a crime. Meckler had a choice. He consciously brought his firearm into New York. The Newton case doesn’t help Meckler at all.

      Now think of a situation where a traveler who had legally checked a gun through from Florida to Vermont is forced by weather to land and stay overnight in New York. The luggage is dumped on a carosel and the passenger grabs her bag, knowing that there’s a gun in it. While she can’t be blamed for the bag ending up in New York, she made a decision to pick up the bag and gun. Sorry, she loses, and I guarantee that the cops will be there to pinch her.

      • “…Now think of a situation where a traveler who had legally checked a gun through from Florida to Vermont is forced by weather to land and stay overnight in New York. The luggage is dumped on a carosel and the passenger grabs her bag, knowing that there’s a gun in it. While she can’t be blamed for the bag ending up in New York, she made a decision to pick up the bag and gun. Sorry, she loses, and I guarantee that the cops will be there to pinch her.”

        So in your fantasyland, what should the passenger do? As far as I’m concerned, she’s STILL TRAVELING, and has only been delayed do to an act of God — something far beyond her control. In such a case, I posit that the Newton case IS precisely the right case to cite.

        Again though, back to your hypothetical; Say you WERE on a plane from PA/VA/FL to VT, and the flight got grounded at La Guardia, and the luggage offloaded. What, in your mind, do you see as the right option for the gun owner?

        • Thought about this very scenario today. I would not attempt to get back on the airplane and would eat the airfare and take some other mode of transportation. If I got stuck in NYC I would rent a car and pay the one way cost.

          Getting stuck in Chicago would be more complicated. I probably would pay for a rental to drive up to Milwaukee and fly home from there. The extra cost would be far less than the legal costs of fighting felony charges.

      • Never said Newton helped Meckler; only that prior to F.O.P.A. it wasn’t go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

        As far as your hypothetical goes, she may get arrested, but any DA worth his salt will be unlikely to press charges, and if in the unlikely chance that he did, I think the defense would have a strong case with Newton as a precedent. Could there be a conviction? Sure.

        On the other hand to give you an example of an even stronger case than your hypothetical, let’s image a man taking a trip from Florida to NYC. He decides to make an illegal right-hand turn, and is stopped by New York’s Finest. Upon presenting his registration his Skyy CPX-1 becomes visible in his glove compartment, and he is arrested for carrying an unlicensed firearm. In NYC of all places. A place where even long-guns need to be registered, and let me tell you what a pain in the ass it is to do so. The DA, having a solid case against the man (no intent is required, only a voluntary action) brings charges confident that the man has no hope. I mean, he wasn’t even passing through, right? He’s hanging out in the city. What do think will happen?

        Well in this case, the man was acquitted within 30 minutes.

        http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan_jury_finds_guilty_who_X818AWxOHgb8rzvXuuIOgP

        Point of the story is that things are rarely ever cut and dry . Facts and circumstances almost always make each case unique and therefore while there is precedent one way or another, only an oracle can predict an outcome. I don’t know whether Meckler will be convicted, or even charged as a preliminary matter. The issue here is that Gawker is doing there best to run a smear campaign. Of course, Gawker is a third rate blog.

    • @Stig, thank-you very much for the reference, I was not aware of that case in New York, I was basing it on what a Mass. State Policeman told my father (back in the early 80’s) when Dad inquired about overnighting in MA with a pistol in his checked bag. The MSP officer was very helpful and recommended extreme caution (basically saying don’t ever, under any circumstances, bring a gun into MA unless it’s licensed in MA).
      Sorry if I’m a bit incoherent, the docs are adjusting my BP meds and I’m still getting used to the new dose.

    • The politicians and the government want this stuff to happen so they can use it as a tool against gun owners. They really would like to disarm and strip people of their rights for to create a government monopoly on guns and power.

    • Reciprocity still leaves state laws intact. if the firearm does not meet state law IE mag capacity over 10 (in NY) then you cannot have it and could be prosecuted for having a high capacity magazine. Or if your carry piece does not meet the requirements of the NYS AWB you could not have it either. I would not be surprised if H.R. 822 became law that NYS would pass a law requiring all handguns to be registered in NY by Serial number and have a COBiS casing on file to end run around the permit reciprocity. Sure your permit is valid but the gun is still illegal in NY.

  10. While the outrage expressed by many gun rights supporters above is commendable and justified, the solutions suggested (National Reciprocity or some federal preemption) will probably be ignored by local DA’s and police. The FOPA and its “Safe Passage” provision are obviously ineffective. The can be ignored by locals. And any (future) effectve federal law will probably run into the wall of 40 Democrats willing to filibuster.

    Yes, Mr Meckler may eventually be aquitted in a trial. But inconvenience and court costs are what local enforcers use to send a message to unwashed normal Americans who want to travel with a firearm. What’s interesting in NY’s case is that this type of enforcement is limited to NY City, especially its airports. Upstate DA’s, even Democrats in Buffalo or Rochester, must run in counties with rural swing voters.

    What is the solution? How does a person who would regularly like to travel through the NY area deal with this? You have no power: Zero control over NY’s local laws and the feds are myopic / useless.

    The solution is simple: Just think and legislate locally like a Bloomberg Thug. Specifically, have your Red state make it a felony to carry a firearm AND have a NY City Permit. Prosecute them remorselessly.

    As a NY resident, trust me: The only thing that will change NY’s culture is force. Those with NY City Handgun Permits (NYPD cops, DA’s, connected celebreties) need to FEAR travelling with a firearm.They regard those in fly-over country with unmitigated contempt. It’s time to return the favor.
    Just jail a few of these POS when they visit a gun range in Arizona, Utah, or Idaho. Only then will NY City pols change their behavior.

  11. Naw, some good old fashioned civil law suits against the small fry at the Airport who reported it would put a real damper on their enthusiasm to do so. Win one million dollar law suit and see how often people get reported illegally after that!

    Then of course the propaganda windfall if one could prove the conspiracy that sure appears to exist. Wouldnt the pursuit of a A Right of Discovery motion to identify when the memo came from and whom directing those people at the Airports to turn those people in would also be a really good start?

    What are the limitations of a right of discovery or even a Freedom of Information Act demands in such a case? Probably no memo’s or direction from a responsible politician would be found as some criminals do cover their tracks. But since Blooming Idiot is so egotistical he probably thinks he is above the law and is arrogant enough not to have covered that base eh. If he has, then it is the individual small fry at the airport who gets sued for violating existing law.

Comments are closed.