Probably gaining standing to challenge NY's lack of "Full Faith and Credit" as to Cali's gun permitting process...

There was a similar case several years ago (2005) where a passenger was unavoidably stranded in NJ due to a flight cancellation. Had his travel plans gone through as planned there would have been no issue. However, he picked up his bags, spent the night in a hotel and was arrested when he attempted to check his bags the following morning. They just need to pass "National Right to Carry" and get over with it. He may have possibly violated a NY state law inadvertently but there was no criminal intent in his actions. Unfortunately as a Gun owner we are expected to be thoroughly familiar with every BS gun law in every state because apparently nobody understands what "Shall not be infringed" means.

"National Right to Carry", BLAHAHAHAHA.  The relevant government types in the State of NJ have already said they will recognize no such thing.  Fed law or no Fed law, you come into Jersey with a gun you will be arrested.

please direct your research to the 'Supremacy Clause' of the Constitution. It is the basis for the current lawsuits by the Federal Government against AZ and MS's immigration reform laws.

Personally, I would prefer if the law were changed to reflect the content of your comment. States should be able to do nearly whatever they want and tell the Feds to go to hell. But alas, all 50 states are required to kowtow to Federal Law in any and all cases regardless of state law.
Also, National Right to Carry is no different than you're driver's license from a foreign state, such as Kalifornia, being valid in another free state, such as my native Missouri. Why should you lose certain Constitutionally protected rights simply by crossing an imaginary line. It's as absurd as a state banning the 1st Amendment.

Laws this, legal that, blah, blah, blah.  Most of what Wall St has been doing these past 20 years has been illegal.  See anyone in jail, or even being prosecuted? Everything is politics.  This National Right to Carry is welcome by politicians in certain states because they want to wash their hands of it.  "Well sure we're against guns, but it's Federal law, what can we do?"  In Jersey the majority of people want guns banned, the NJ PBA/FOP want guns banned from private ownership, most politicians want guns banned.  They are not going to give a rat's ass when you start quoting Federal law to them.  It's only going to get you laughed at as they drag you off to the nearest lock-up.  The Feds are not going to send in Federal troops to enforce the law 1960's civil rights style.  BTW, have you ever been to Jersey?  The place is as corrupt as any third world country.  I once tried to file a criminal complaint against someone and was told "leave the building or you'll be arrested for trespass".  I then had to hire a lawyer to file the complaint for me.  For months after I was followed by the police and harassed.  I'm pretty sure that was a violation of my civil rights under the constitution of the US.  Where were the Federal marshals to enforce the law?  Grow up.

Nope, never been to Jersey and the more I see/hear about it the less I want to go. I used to have a friend who grew up in Trenton, certainly didn't paint an attractive picture of it.

"Most of what Wall St has been doing these past 20 years has been illegal..."

Statements like this make you lose all credibility.  Pick ANY standard you want and show me how this applied to "most" (i.e. more than 50%) of wall street and was illegal.  You can't.  There may be people who have done things that are illegal, but that is by no mean even remotely close on any standard to "most" of the activities of Wall Street.

Of course it doesn't bother me, I can't really think of any reason I'd want to go to NY or NJ. I just want to be able to carry in SC and maybe OK, CA, and NV.

The terms Relevant, Government and NY/NJ should never be used in a sentence together as they are contradictory to one-another. Both states are fine examples of how gun control doesn't work just as Illinois and D.C. are.

Are you a British marine, USMC_Limey?  That must mean you can chew through lead with your bad teeth. 
Anyway the court ruled that since his firearm and ammunition were readily accessible to him during his stay in New Jersey he was in violation of State's Firearm Possession Laws.  Also the guy in that situation was only given a minor penalty for his mistake so I'm not shedding any tears. The "Shall not be infringed" part of the sentence doesn't wipe out the "Well Regulated" part of it.   

No, I was born in the UK and served in the United States Marine Corps (hence the US in USMC). Your comments about British dental standards do nothing but show your ignorance and that everything you know is based on comedy shows. For your information unlike the Majority of Americans I have a picture perfect set of teeth without any orthodontia.

The term "Well Regulated" as was in common use around the end of the 18th century referred to being well trained, disciplined, and familiar with the manual of arms. The current perversion of the term regulation comes from rebranding of "restriction" to make it more palatable for the weak minded to roll over and give up thier rights under the pretense of "the common good".

The NJ case was actually dismissed by the DA and 3 years later the gentleman finally got his gun back. The fact is that there was no evidence that the luggage that the firearm was in was ever opened and therefore Mr Revell had not necessarily violated the Federal Law as it stands. You cannot convict somebody based on a suspicion that they may have accessed their firearm. The burden of reasonable doubt still exists whether you happen to be in NY, NJ

Yes, everything I comment on here is based on information gained from my favorite Britcom the "Young Ones," you bloody wanker.  Which probably makes a better source than the one you're using.  

You just parsed to death the term "Well Regulated" and conveniently ignored the Militia part of the sentence.  Pretty sure "Militia" referred to a standing citizen army similar to our National Guard so by your own argument, you're actually supporting gun law restrictions.  
Thanks for playing and come back soon.

Semper Fi my good man

From the majority Decision in Heller vs. D.C. By Justice Scalia:

1.  The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.  (2-54)
 
            (a) In the Second Amendment’s operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”), the phrase “the right of the people” creates “a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”  ( 5-7) 
 
            In the phrase “to keep and bear Arms”, the word “Arms” “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”  (8)  The phrase “keep … Arms” means “have weapons.”  (Slip op. at 8-9).  The phrase “bear Arms” means to “carry weapons” and was understood as part of “the natural right of defense ‘of one’s person or house”.  (9-18)  It “in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.”  Justice Stevens’s claim that “bear Arms” “connotes the actual carrying of arms … but only in the service of an organized militia” incoherently gives “Arms” two different meanings at once:   
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”  Grotesque.  [13]
            The operative clause thus guarantees “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.  This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”  (19-22)
 
            (b) The relevant question for the prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) is whether it is consistent with our reading of the operative clause.  (4-5, 22.)  The phrase “well regulated Militia” means “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”  (22-24)  The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States.  (24) [This point would seem to defeat one of the strongest arguments against incorporating the Second Amendment against the States.] 
 
            The prefatory clause “fits perfectly” with the operative clause, as the founding generation knew that “the way tyrants had eliminated a militia … was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.”  (25)  But the prefatory clause “does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”  (26) 

"Your comments about British dental standards do nothing but show your
ignorance and that everything you know is based on comedy shows."

<3 this sentence

I'm not a tea party supporter by any means but I think it's obvious that the guy made an honest mistake and was arrested because he didn't research the law. But because Meckler is tea party member, JDS vomits up a sensationalist "article" filled with shitty unfunny snark in his usual sad attempt to appear witty and clever, combined with a grossly misleading headline. And you wonder why you can't get a NYPD press pass. I still can't believe that this sad group of talentless bloggers at Gothamist have the gall to call themselves journalists.

Oh for fuck's sake.  I'm somewhere (mood-dependent) on the spectrum between "universal registration" and "nationwide sale/manufacturing/import ban" when it comes to handguns, but was arresting this guy and inevitably creating a media circus the only way to handle this?  The gun was unloaded, locked in a box, and he was attempting to check it into cargo: that's not exactly a threat.

And he was leaving NY too.  On his way back to california?

I have nothing against responsible people owing firearms, but being a Tea-Tard should automatically disqualify a person from firearms ownership based on the fact that they are mentally incapacitated.  Tea-Tards should also be prohibited from: Raising children. Driving cars. Voting.  Being in possession of anything sharp and or pointy.

So, basically you're saying you support the suppression of the civil rights of a class of people you disagree with. You are advocating the return of Jim Crow. You are actually advocating the return of rights-inequality in our country, an undoing of centuries of progress.

Glad you've confiremd the extent of your intolerance. It quite neatly summarizes the extremism and bigotry of the Liberal cause.

All stupidity aside, Gothamist headline writers, there is a *major* difference between "trying to board a plane with a gun" and "checking a gun."