Originally Posted by Alpo
Just a minor thought, here.
He was getting on the bus, in Chicago. That means, to me, that he was IN Chicago (not "passing through" from a spot where it was legal to have to gun to another spot that it was legal to have the gun, which would be protected under the FOPA of 1986). If you are IN Chicago, with a gun, you have broken the law.
Now, if he (the Nevada guy) was visiting someone in Chicago, as soon as he crossed the city limits with those guns in his suitcase, HE BECAME A CRIMINAL. And if the cops found out about the guns, when he was getting on the bus to go back to Nevada, he was still in Chicago, and STILL BREAKING THE LAW.
It seems to me that if you feel the need to go to the City of Chicago, the City of Washington, the State of New Jersey, the State of Massachusetts, the State of New York or the State of California, you need to either leave your firearms at home, or for God's sake keep your mouth shut about it.
Morons run around telling the police, "I'm breaking the law", and then the internet gets upset when said morons get arrested.
I see a great many "gaps" in the story line.
First, why was the gentleman "boarding" the dog in Chicago ? Was a stop there part of his planned - or ticketed - itinary ?
Second, was the gentleman enroute to another destination where he would have been "legal" ? IOW did the "Dog's " schedule or actions cause him to be in violation of local law(s) ?
Third, does Greyhound provide secure storage inside the boarding/examination area for persons enroute that are changing buses ? (There is a benchmark NJ case where a passenger was forced to violate local law due to direct action of his carrier.)
Fourth, if travelers are going to be held liable for violations of local law(s) - regardless of intent/circumstances commerce in the nation is going to come to a screeching halt ! If a municipality can impose draconian restrictions upon traveling with guns, why not equally draconian ones against traveling with cash, or portable computers, or machinery or tools ? IOW, if "potential criminal enterprise"is the peg upon which these municipalities are going to hang their hat, possession of any object they decide to prohibit meets that criterium. >MW