Inability to legally carry on federal property - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: Inability to legally carry on federal property

  1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    I dont see a solitary thing in the 2nd that states anything about it being OKAY to infringe on it, in fact it very plainly states that it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"..... So, any regulation or statute or "law" that has anything to do with firearms (arms) is null and void, not a law at all....

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by tmaca View Post
    US Post Offices, VA property, and any other federal owned, leased, or tenanted property: No you cannot leave the gun in the car. You cannot even drive into the parking lot if you have a weapon. Including any knife, even a folding knife, having a blade longer than 4 inches. The law says federal "property", which the parking lot is, not just in a federal building. That's a big problem at VA facilities.
    Which law is that? Not 18 USC 930. 18 USC 930 says:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

    18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    (a)Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
    (b)Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    (e)
    (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (g)As used in this section:
    (1)The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
    The prohibition contained in 18 USC 930 is clearly limited to "a building or part therof" and not property. There is no blanket statutory prohibition of firearms on Federal property, just in Federal buildings. There are regulations contained within the Code of Federal Regulations which prohibits firearms on certain Federal property (such as the postal regulations), but there is no blanket prohibition of all Federal property. That is why it is legal to possess a fully loaded firearm in a National Park and in a National Forest (if state law allows) - because there is no regulation against it - and since 2010 there has actually been a statutory law that states the Dept. of Interior is not allow to prohibit firearms through regulations.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. The building or part thereof is the problem. They interpret it as a parking lot is a partr thereof. Until someone gets busted and wins the argument in court, that's how they'll keep enforcing it.

  5. But it's actually worse than that. I was being lazy and just using the one law for all federal stuff, because that's how it's being enforced everywhere. So I'll be specific.

    The VA:

    Title 38, Chapter 1, Part 1, section 1.218(13), Security and law enforcement at VA facilities (Weapons and explosives), says: No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.

    Having it in a car is carrying it.

    The Post Office:


    In June 2015 Tab Bonidy, a licensed Colorado concealed carrier, sued the USPS. His post office did not deliver, and he had to go there to get his mail. He argued that the law disarmed him, and that he should at least be allowed to lock his gun in his car in the parking lot. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) prohibits the storage and carriage of firearms on USPS property. He lost at the US District Court For The District Of Colorado. He appealed.

    A 3 judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found against him, although 1 judge dissented, saying there should be a locked in the car in the parking lot exception. Bonidy appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In March 2016 the SC refused to hear the case, which means the 10th Circuit's decision stands.

    I believe the VA prohibition could be overturned in court. Here's why. The 2nd amendment is not as clear, cut, and dried as many people think. Like all articles in the constitution, the courts decide how it applies in the real world. In fact, until fairly recently, because of that "well regulated militia" bit, it was all too often seen as a collective right, not an individual one, allowing members of government run "militias" to be armed, but only as part of the group. According to that interpretation, even an Army reservist had no individual right to be armed. Now the Supreme Court has declared that it is an individual right, and the game has changed. But it is still not an absolute right.

    Would you want just anyone at all to be able to drive a car on the highway, with no requirement to prove driving ability, physical condition, or even age? Of course not. That's why we have drivers licenses. Same thing with gun laws.

    The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a gun is a potentially dangerous instrument, that the government has an actual duty to protect the public, and that "reasonable regulations" concerning who can be armed when and where with what do not infringe on the 2nd amendment. The key is "reasonable". The DC law got tossed because, under the guise of a safety rule, it effectively disarmed everyone by requiring guns, even in the home, to be nonfunctional. The courts found that to be unreasonable.

    In Boniday's case, he could leave his gun home, get his mail, and return home for his gun in a short time. The 10th Circuit apparently found that disarming one person for a short period was not unreasonable.

    But the VA law forces tens of thousands of vets every day who have to go to a VAMC or VARO to either break federal law or leave all weapons home and remain unarmed. Most vets live many miles away, and for lots of them it's an all day or even a multi day trip. Disarming so many for so long every day could be seen as unreasonable by the courts. I'd love to be the plaintiff in that lawsuit, but I don't even have enough money for a lawyer if I got a traffic ticket.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by tmaca View Post
    But it's actually worse than that. I was being lazy and just using the one law for all federal stuff, because that's how it's being enforced everywhere. So I'll be specific.

    The VA:

    Title 38, Chapter 1, Part 1, section 1.218(13), Security and law enforcement at VA facilities (Weapons and explosives), says: No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.

    Having it in a car is carrying it.

    The Post Office:


    In June 2015 Tab Bonidy, a licensed Colorado concealed carrier, sued the USPS. His post office did not deliver, and he had to go there to get his mail. He argued that the law disarmed him, and that he should at least be allowed to lock his gun in his car in the parking lot. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) prohibits the storage and carriage of firearms on USPS property. He lost at the US District Court For The District Of Colorado. He appealed.

    A 3 judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found against him, although 1 judge dissented, saying there should be a locked in the car in the parking lot exception. Bonidy appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In March 2016 the SC refused to hear the case, which means the 10th Circuit's decision stands.

    I believe the VA prohibition could be overturned in court. Here's why. The 2nd amendment is not as clear, cut, and dried as many people think. Like all articles in the constitution, the courts decide how it applies in the real world. In fact, until fairly recently, because of that "well regulated militia" bit, it was all too often seen as a collective right, not an individual one, allowing members of government run "militias" to be armed, but only as part of the group. According to that interpretation, even an Army reservist had no individual right to be armed. Now the Supreme Court has declared that it is an individual right, and the game has changed. But it is still not an absolute right.

    Would you want just anyone at all to be able to drive a car on the highway, with no requirement to prove driving ability, physical condition, or even age? Of course not. That's why we have drivers licenses. Same thing with gun laws.

    The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a gun is a potentially dangerous instrument, that the government has an actual duty to protect the public, and that "reasonable regulations" concerning who can be armed when and where with what do not infringe on the 2nd amendment. The key is "reasonable". The DC law got tossed because, under the guise of a safety rule, it effectively disarmed everyone by requiring guns, even in the home, to be nonfunctional. The courts found that to be unreasonable.

    In Boniday's case, he could leave his gun home, get his mail, and return home for his gun in a short time. The 10th Circuit apparently found that disarming one person for a short period was not unreasonable.

    But the VA law forces tens of thousands of vets every day who have to go to a VAMC or VARO to either break federal law or leave all weapons home and remain unarmed. Most vets live many miles away, and for lots of them it's an all day or even a multi day trip. Disarming so many for so long every day could be seen as unreasonable by the courts. I'd love to be the plaintiff in that lawsuit, but I don't even have enough money for a lawyer if I got a traffic ticket.
    tmaca,
    I think LCDR is right by the letter of the law. So many rules, who knows anymore. Problem is, I go to the VA at least twice a month and it sounds like you do too and it is drilled into Vets seeking VA care that guns, ammo, and knives are verboten. It is totally unfair that a vet that meets all of the wickets to concealed carry cannot at least carry to the facility and then lock their EDC in their vehicle. I am completely ok with not carrying in the facility and God knows I don't always feel safe inside. Some of our brothers and sisters in arms have some severe mental anguish and trauma and I have seen examples of their pain inside the VA. I know I can't afford the lawsuit or risk jail so I grimace and bear it to get care. All you have to do is pick up the phone and call the various VA facilities PD folks (most of them good solid vets themselves) and you'll (anecdotally) get their position on guns once you even cross the entrance threshold. Ask a vet that gets care on a consistent basis. Not one of them will be reluctant to speak about their views on that rule but not one of us dares break it. I go to a VA facility on occasion that is in one of the highest crime neighborhoods in our entire state and the parking lot on the facility is full by 0745. What that means is if you get stuck in traffic or delayed for any reason is that then you're on the street and parking on the streets outside the VA "campus". Who would want to leave their carry locked in the car in that case? It's a total catch 22 but I don't have the resources to fight it and I have had a conversation with my state representative and they are completely neutered at the state level. Forget about talking to Congresspersons. Talk to the hand you pesky vets. Maybe if I win the lotto, I'll take it on but in the meantime and in betweetime, it is just what it is.


    Sent from my XT1585 using USA Carry mobile app

  7. Exact Reason To Post

    Quote Originally Posted by niceshootintex View Post
    So that is the exact reason you speak out on an opinion board? Somebody relates their own experience based on recollection and conversations with Park Rangers and you swoop in to save the day? Thank God you're here to save us LCDR. I based my reply on my experiences having actually hunted in National Parks in Texas and Wyoming. I didn't run to Google it and like most posts in these forums, the responses are layered such that the accumulation of experiences or opinions drives the end result and your response was well researched so thanks. I now have a clearer picture of Nation Park firearm rules and it will probably be helpful at some point too. Speak in a less sanctimonious and condescending manner to your fellow firearms enthusiasts when you come with the better set of facts. I'm pretty sure we all got some good gouge from you so thanks.

    Sent from my XT1585 using USA Carry mobile app
    I think what the guy is saying is not that he feels a need to tell people they're wrong, but that there is a lot of incorrect info floating around concerning guns, and it's worth the effort to provide correct info if you can. It might save someone a lot of trouble. I've seen things here at times that said you could not be armed somewhere you could, and things saying you could when you cannot. Two examples are national parks and the VA and the Post Office parking lots. Someone going to or through a national park could have a problem if he didn't know the law now allows firearms. Someone in the Post Office or VA parking lot could end up arrested if he thought he could have a weapon in the car.

    And he'd be right. Nowadays most everyone gets their info online. And sometimes they forget that discussions like this are just that, discussions, written by ordinary people, and not expert opinions from the site itself. So once in a while someone will take what they read as Gospel truth even when it's wrong. And with guns, all it takes is one mistake about the law to ruin your life.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Sinlessearth View Post
    This all depends on the base and their policies. Every base is different. Not sure about the VA.
    I did that at Wright-Patt but it was a pain to answer the "why's" about not leaving it at home. The desk sergeant ended up just making a note and had me inform base LE he'd said I could stow it in the armory. I won't do it again because its such a pain. Plus if I were stopped on the way to the armory by an LEO who wasn't in the loop it could be downright hazardous given all the crap going on nowadays.


    USAF(Ret)

  9. Quote Originally Posted by tmaca View Post
    I think what the guy is saying is not that he feels a need to tell people they're wrong, but that there is a lot of incorrect info floating around concerning guns, and it's worth the effort to provide correct info if you can. It might save someone a lot of trouble. I've seen things here at times that said you could not be armed somewhere you could, and things saying you could when you cannot. Two examples are national parks and the VA and the Post Office parking lots. Someone going to or through a national park could have a problem if he didn't know the law now allows firearms. Someone in the Post Office or VA parking lot could end up arrested if he thought he could have a weapon in the car.

    And he'd be right. Nowadays most everyone gets their info online. And sometimes they forget that discussions like this are just that, discussions, written by ordinary people, and not expert opinions from the site itself. So once in a while someone will take what they read as Gospel truth even when it's wrong. And with guns, all it takes is one mistake about the law to ruin your life.
    I think LCDR put out good gouge and I felt it was important to also thank him for that. Posting on boards is sometimes such a flat medium that nuances easily picked up in person, or even on the phone, are missed. If that was the case then I'm humble enough and more than glad to give another poster, especially a service member, the benefit of the doubt. His data was accurate and helpful for certain.

    Sent from my XT1585 using USA Carry mobile app

  10. I explained my reason for "nit picking" in an earlier post. There are plenty of laws and regulations that DO infringe upon our right to keep and bear firearms. When people post things like "according to FOPA, firearms and ammo must be locked up separately" and "Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms on all Federal property" people will just take it as fact and because of that maybe not exercise what little right to keep and bear firearms the government has not actually made illegal or otherwise regulated.

    And in regards to people who like to claim that the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... then why is the 2nd Amendment different than the other rights in the Bill of Rights? Let's take the 4th Amendment, for example. Why is a background check and a permit not required to exercise 4th Amendment rights? Imagine how great it would be to have to pay for a background check with fingerprints to get a 4th Amendment permit! You get stopped for speeding. The officer asks for your 4th Amendment permit. Don't have one? Awesome, how about if you exit the vehicle now, get frisked by the officer for weapons, and have your car searched. Imagine how much easier that would make police officers' jobs and how much safer everyone would be! (Yes, that was sarcasm, but I'll bet you could get the far left 'progressives' to go for it!) Oh, but by goodness don't ask anyone if they are in the country illegally, we can't do that, now can we.

    Why is the right to keep and bear arms different than the right to vote? Can you image how the liberals would wail and cry and moan if we required people to take the same actions to vote as to purchase a firearm from an FFL? So, if the simple requirement of having to produce a valid government ID in order to vote is an infringement on that right to vote (you know, the voter suppression argument), then why is having to obtain the government's permission to keep and bear firearms not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

    And that's my point in all this - the government does infringe on the 2nd Amendment too much already by statute and regulation, I just do not think the gun owning community needs "tribal knowledge" to provide even more "regulation" than what is already an actual written statute or regulation.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I explained my reason for "nit picking" in an earlier post. There are plenty of laws and regulations that DO infringe upon our right to keep and bear firearms. When people post things like "according to FOPA, firearms and ammo must be locked up separately" and "Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms on all Federal property" people will just take it as fact and because of that maybe not exercise what little right to keep and bear firearms the government has not actually made illegal or otherwise regulated.

    And in regards to people who like to claim that the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... then why is the 2nd Amendment different than the other rights in the Bill of Rights? Let's take the 4th Amendment, for example. Why is a background check and a permit not required to exercise 4th Amendment rights? Imagine how great it would be to have to pay for a background check with fingerprints to get a 4th Amendment permit! You get stopped for speeding. The officer asks for your 4th Amendment permit. Don't have one? Awesome, how about if you exit the vehicle now, get frisked by the officer for weapons, and have your car searched. Imagine how much easier that would make police officers' jobs and how much safer everyone would be! (Yes, that was sarcasm, but I'll bet you could get the far left 'progressives' to go for it!) Oh, but by goodness don't ask anyone if they are in the country illegally, we can't do that, now can we.

    Why is the right to keep and bear arms different than the right to vote? Can you image how the liberals would wail and cry and moan if we required people to take the same actions to vote as to purchase a firearm from an FFL? So, if the simple requirement of having to produce a valid government ID in order to vote is an infringement on that right to vote (you know, the voter suppression argument), then why is having to obtain the government's permission to keep and bear firearms not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

    And that's my point in all this - the government does infringe on the 2nd Amendment too much already by statute and regulation, I just do not think the gun owning community needs "tribal knowledge" to provide even more "regulation" than what is already an actual written statute or regulation.
    Your analogies to the 4A and simple, sensible ID voting requirements vs a tangled bureaucracy of admin hurdles for gun ownership illustrate the problems of "common sense gun control" attempts by the Lefty's at every opportunity. You were kind to call them progressives.

    Whether it was well researched, or knowledge of National Park rules you carry with you, as a hunter and CC advocate, your post was helpful. As a former holder of the title you use as a pseudonym, appreciate the effort involved. Don't drive on base with your EDC to make your point though....😉

    Sent from my XT1585 using USA Carry mobile app

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast