Is Alaskan air going to follow suit

[PC]

I just received this from the SCI:

SCI has been advised by domestic airline representatives that on June 1st, 2006, airlines began strictly enforcing oversize baggage regulations and charging an extra fee for any case with combined dimensions (height plus length plus width) of more than 62 inches. Obviously, this policy will affect sportsmen traveling with cased long guns. This news follows the announcement earlier this year from Air Canada that they will now charge a $50 handling fee per long gun per flight. Responding to a complaint filed jointly by SCI and the NRA, Air Canada Customer Relations Manager Jocelyne Henry stated "Although firearms and particularly ammunition fall into the 'dangerous goods' category, the fee is based on the greater workload we bear to check a firearm and not on the fact that it is considered dangerous. The same fee is applied to both bicycles and surfboards when carried as checked baggage." At this time, SCI and The Federalist Group are developing a plan to contest the domestic application of this fee to firearm cases. To bolster this effort, it would be helpful to have examples from SCI members of encountering this fee, and the circumstances under which the fee was charged. Please let us know if you have been charged this fee, and how the charge was justified by airline staff. Please include details of your flight, carrier, and a detailed description of the firearm case for which the fee was levied.

Also, will all airlines start charging a $50 handling fee each way for firearms the same as Air Canada. If they become very strict on the 62 inch rule then all Tuffpacs will have to pay additional fees. And all skiers and golfers are going to be accessed an additional $50 each way and that will not go over very good especially when airlines are trying to promote vacations and destinations. If one flys in to Anchorage/Fairbanks and overnights and leaves in one of two days to Kotz will they have to pay the fee again both ways? If a person flys from the lower 48 with a long gun case and is charge an additional $50 for being over 62 inches plus $50 for a gun handling charge to Anchorage and over nights in Anchorage then catches a commerical flight to the bush and is charge again $50 and $50 each way plus another $50 and $50 for the homeward bound flight then the total bill for transportation of firearms would be $400 additional dollars.

Does anyone have any insight

 

[dwhunter]

Airlines

Airlines

I am going to guess that it is another stab at a new profit option, much like some carriers now charging extra for an aisle or bulkhead seat.

It certainly is not because of check-in workload, it is no more difficult to check a firearm than any other luggage minus the firearm declaration tag for inside your gun case.

Doug

 

[Casper50]

Mail the gun to yourself in care of someone that you know. i.e. guide or buddy. Mail is cheap, you can insure, and you don't have to carry it. Just make sure that you mail it in plenty of time.

 

[bushrat]

Can't mail firearms without FFL

Can't mail firearms without FFL

Casper50,

Last I checked, firearms can only be shipped via mail from one FFL dealer to another. The shipper and receiver has to have a federal firearms license. Usually they are open to doing this and charge a small fee. Things could have changed, not sure.

Mark

 

[c-ne-elk]

Gun case

Gun case

I started long ago using a take down rifle case (or shotgun case) when I traveled with my rifle. I take the gun out of the stock and put the 2 pieces in the case. I started doing this as I did not want to keep fooling around with a long gun case and the shorter case is much lighter anyway.

1st thing I always do is make sure my gun is sighted in properly after traveling anyway. My stocks are pilar bedded and 19 times out of 20, my guns are right where they should be when I check them. With just a little practice at the range, you can get good at "torqueing" the screws down the same amount every time.

 

[fishermann222]

mailing firearms

mailing firearms

Casper50,

Last I checked, firearms can only be shipped via mail from one FFL dealer to another. The shipper and receiver has to have a federal firearms license. Usually they are open to doing this and charge a small fee. Things could have changed, not sure.

Mark

Mark you can mail rifles and shotguns through the mail from yourself to yourself. In the case of moving, or hunting Somewhere and wanting to mail it back to your place of residence. People mail firearms all the time this way. It is completely legal.

Rifles and shotguns can also be mailed to a manufacturer, dealer or gunsmith for work, and then they can mail them back to you if you already legally own the firearm. Onlytime you need an FFL is when shipping to someone else, or selling the firearm.

Pistols are not legal however.

 

[dwhunter]

New info

New info

From NSSF Bullet points today

AIRLINE FEE FOR CHECKED GUNS…Air Canada has begun charging a new fee for checking firearms and ammunition, and rumors are that domestic carriers will follow suit. The firearm fee is $50 each direction. The airline says it now applies the fee to all specialty items from surfboards to bicycles to rifles. However, according to the Air Canada Web site, golf clubs are not assessed additional fees. Along with NRA and Safari Club International, NSSF opposes these unnecessary and costly fees that will have the effect, if not the intent, of discouraging hunters and shooters from traveling to enjoy their sports. If you experience additional fees while traveling with firearms on an U.S. carrier, please report it to NSSF at [email protected].

I use the airlines very regularly (87k miles on AA last year) and carry firearms half my trips and I will certainly make an issue over this if the opportunity arises, they do not like you switching airlines these days.

Doug

 

[Carnivore]

dismantling and sighting

dismantling and sighting

1st thing I always do is make sure my gun is sighted in properly after traveling anyway. My stocks are pilar bedded and 19 times out of 20, my guns are right where they should be when I check them. With just a little practice at the range, you can get good at "torqueing" the screws down the same amount every time.

C-ne-elk

If the sights/scope are mounted on the gun and not the gun stock, it doesn't seem like should have any problems with it being sighted in after taking it apart. I take my rifle stock off often to clean the barrel and action without any problems. Am I missing something on this?

-Carnivore

 

[bizymocha]

Mixed Answers and Thoughts

Mixed Answers and Thoughts

1. The airlines will be sticking it to whomever they can. What a better group than hunters to extract an extra hundred from. What's your alternative, walk?
2. Mailing a rifle to yourself. Sounds legal but who is going to sign for it at the other end in Alaska? You most likely are enroute and not there to receive it. Needs more research. You might spend a night in the pokey.
3. Disassembly of a rifle may or may not change the "zero" when you assemble it. Depends on how fussy it is or how it is bedded. Check it at the range - shoot 3, disassemble, assemble, shoot 3 and repeat. Did your zero chenge?

More reasons for non-residents to stay home? See the airlines are on the side of the Alaskan residents!

And the Canadians? We should have annexed them a 100 years ago!

 

[Michael Strahan]

Airline Fees

Airline Fees

As a career airline employee, I'll say that the goal of most airlines is not to "stick it to" their customers any more than it is the goal of any other business to do the same. It's easy to vilify a non-personal entity like a large company, airline or otherwise, but the truth is that the decisions these companies make, like those of other companies, are based upon the motive of earning a profit for their shareholders. If the airlines have learned anything from these last few lean years, it has been that passengers are more concerned about the price of a ticket than they are about the perks that happen once they're buckled in to a seat. That's why some of them are now charging for meals and other amenities. That's also why we're seeing a downtrend in free amenities offered on flights. The advent of low-cost carriers, together with competition from other large carriers who don't pay their bills (and are operating in bankruptcy) has created all sorts of wierd dynamics for companies who remain competitive as a result of difficult but strategically-necessary business decisions.

While I'm not surprised to see Air Canada charging extra fees for sporting equipment, I'm not seeing any evidence of a trend in the industry in this direction. That's not to say it couldn't happen, but I'm not hearing about it. As to the extra work involved in handling long guns, it is actually true. In many cases longer items such as rifles, shotguns, golf clubs, skis, fishing rods and the like cannot go down automated conveyor systems, and must be hand-carried by agents from the counter to other areas of the airport. It might seem like it all gets handled the same way, but it doesn't.

Hope this helps!

-Mike

 

[dwhunter]

Mike,

I agree with you for the most part re profit etc that is business. In this case Air Canada has excluded golf clubs and I will assume that it is because they feel a higher % of their travelers travel with clubs and with the increased pressure from the other airlines it is a % of their travelers they do not wish to upset or lose right now. I am sure that golf clubs actually take up more space than a gun case and honestly I would bet clubs are much more difficult to pack with their round shape.

I realize that AK airlines is one of the very few airlines operating profitably right now and I do not expect them to add extra charges as they now have an edge on the other airlines but those of us forced to choose between the others right now down south of AK have to make our voices heard with our wallets and when you figure a traveler like myself with 35-40 flights every year it adds to the bottom line. I have done it before and I will do it again if necessary, when I feel an airline no longer appreciates me being loyal I talk to the others and take my business elsewhere, that is how I have to take care of my bottom line.

Doug

As a career airline employee, I'll say that the goal of most airlines is not to "stick it to" their customers any more than it is the goal of any other business to do the same. It's easy to vilify a non-personal entity like a large company, airline or otherwise, but the truth is that the decisions these companies make, like those of other companies, are based upon the motive of earning a profit for their shareholders. If the airlines have learned anything from these last few lean years, it has been that passengers are more concerned about the price of a ticket than they are about the perks that happen once they're buckled in to a seat. That's why some of them are now charging for meals and other amenities. That's also why we're seeing a downtrend in free amenities offered on flights. The advent of low-cost carriers, together with competition from other large carriers who don't pay their bills (and are operating in bankruptcy) has created all sorts of wierd dynamics for companies who remain competitive as a result of difficult but strategically-necessary business decisions.

While I'm not surprised to see Air Canada charging extra fees for sporting equipment, I'm not seeing any evidence of a trend in the industry in this direction. That's not to say it couldn't happen, but I'm not hearing about it. As to the extra work involved in handling long guns, it is actually true. In many cases longer items such as rifles, shotguns, golf clubs, skis, fishing rods and the like cannot go down automated conveyor systems, and must be hand-carried by agents from the counter to other areas of the airport. It might seem like it all gets handled the same way, but it doesn't.

Hope this helps!

-Mike

 

[AlleninAlaska]

Casper50,

Last I checked, firearms can only be shipped via mail from one FFL dealer to another. The shipper and receiver has to have a federal firearms license. Usually they are open to doing this and charge a small fee. Things could have changed, not sure.

Mark

False. Heck you can even ship firearms between residents of the same state without going through an FFL if there is no specific State Law barring such a transaction. Only thing is is that you cannot ship handguns through the mail unless they are shipped from one FFL to another FFL. This information comes direct from me being a former FFL holder. And Federal Law will support me.

 

[fishermann222]

Selling

Selling

Allen-
So if I buy a gun from a private owner they can mail it to me? That is REALLY good to know, because of where I live . Do you have documentation or know where I can find the written law? I don't doubt you, I just want to get a copy of that in case I ever need it

 

[AlleninAlaska]

Allen-
So if I buy a gun from a private owner they can mail it to me? That is REALLY good to know, because of where I live . Do you have documentation or know where I can find the written law? I don't doubt you, I just want to get a copy of that in case I ever need it

Jon this only pertains to residents of the same state.

(B7) May a no- licensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?[Back]
A no- licensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A no- licensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.
[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

(B8) May a no- licensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier? [Back]
A no- licensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]

(B9) May a no- licensee ship firearms interstate for his or her use in hunting or other lawful activity? [Back]
Yes. A person may ship a firearm to himself or herself in care of another person in the State where he or she intends to hunt or engage in any other lawful activity. The package should be addressed to the owner. Persons other than the owner should not open the package and take possession of the firearm.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b7

 

[white17]

From US Postal regulations:

11.3 Rifles and Shotguns
Although unloaded rifles and shotguns not precluded by 11.1.1e and 11.1.2 are mailable, mailers must comply with the Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618, 18 USC 921, et seq., and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, 27 CFR 178, as well as state and local laws. The mailer may be required by the USPS to establish, by opening the parcel or by written certification, that the gun is unloaded and not precluded by 11.1.1e.

 

[Gopher]

Seems like a double standard. I have never been charged in all my international or national travel with my hockey equipment. The sticks bags are over 62 inches and so is my hockey bag. Sometimes I get hassled but i ask for a manager, who is generally too busy, and they say forget it.

 

[dwhunter]

From today's NSSF bullet points


RETHINKING AIR CANADA FEES . . . Based on a litany of complaints and a petition from sportsmen groups, the Canadian Transportation Agency has suspended Air Canada’s new $50 handling fee per checked firearm, reported in last week's Bullet Points. The suspension applies only to international flights for the duration of a review process, while the agency considers whether the fees are "just and reasonable."


Doug

 

[whateveri8]

No Wonder You Lost Your FFL, Allen!

No Wonder You Lost Your FFL, Allen!

False. Heck you can even ship firearms between residents of the same state without going through an FFL if there is no specific State Law barring such a transaction. Only thing is is that you cannot ship handguns through the mail unless they are shipped from one FFL to another FFL. This information comes direct from me being a former FFL holder. And Federal Law will support me.

That's right allen, Federal law will support you. (edited by Steve to be family friendly...)

Here is exactly what the ATF 'Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide' (ATF P 5300.4) says:
(B9) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm. [18 U. S. C. 922( a)( 2)( A) and 922( e), 27 CFR 178.31]

in basic english -Federal Law requires that all modern firearms be shipped only to a holder of a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL). The recipient must be have an FFL; however the sender is not required to have one. Any person who is legally allowed to own a firearm is legally allowed to ship it to an FFL holder for any legal purpose (including sale or resale).

Bottom line is if you ship a firearm to anyone other than an FFL you risk a FELONY

 

[8x57 Mauser]

Huh?

Huh?

I'm no expert on the federal rules, WhateverI8, but the federal rule you just quoted says the opposite of the conclusion you reached.

It says someone who doesn't have an FFL can ship a firearm within the same state to a receipient who also doesn't have an FFL. Or to an FFL holder in any state. That's what I took from Allen's post.

Maybe there are other provisions in federal law that negate or otherwise impact this? Provisions you didn't cite here?

In any event, you might want to calm down just a bit. I don't let my 4-year-old call people names. Maybe you could ease off when you disagree with other posters on these forums, please.

 

[AlleninAlaska]

That's right allen, Federal law will support you. (edited by Steve to be family friendly...)

Here is exactly what the ATF 'Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide' (ATF P 5300.4) says:
(B9) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm. [18 U. S. C. 922( a)( 2)( A) and 922( e), 27 CFR 178.31]

in basic english -Federal Law requires that all modern firearms be shipped only to a holder of a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL). The recipient must be have an FFL; however the sender is not required to have one. Any person who is legally allowed to own a firearm is legally allowed to ship it to an FFL holder for any legal purpose (including sale or resale).

Bottom line is if you ship a firearm to anyone other than an FFL you risk a FELONY

I have no problem calling you a liar for the second time. And evidently you can't read English. Are yoiu a legal resident of ther USA?