Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Don't OC on Federal Property

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Don't OC on Federal Property

    Chief US District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson amendment 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) and extended General Order 13-54-1 to include standing on Federal Property with weapons and not just entering buildings with weapons on March 2, 2015.
    This is "our" Government setting up the protesters that they know are going to be with weapons on March 6th to violate a newly amended Federal law and be subject to arrest and prosecution. Furthermore, it is even more apparent that it is retaliatory by the Government since they only changed general order 13-54-1 specifically for Yakima, Richland and Spokane. This is an intentional and malicious act against the people.

    Link to the order

    http://1.usa.gov/1wZHbuZ

    <edit> fixed the date to March 6th.
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 03-06-2015 at 02:51 PM.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Courts and judges can now do the business of Congress by creating laws?

    She (the judge) would seem to presume to extend her authority beyond normal expectations.

    Even the secret service does not throw so wide a blanket when the POTUS comes to town.

    Clearly the action this judge has initiated is designed to be a punji pit to injure the unwary.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Hasn't there already been a SCOTUS ruling on possession of a firearm on postal property(not inside buildings)?

    Sorry I guess not a SCOTUS ruling but a 10th circuit. FUQ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...e-post-office/

    In the District Court, Judge Richard Matsch upheld the postal ban for the post office lobby (where patrons access their mail boxes), ruling it to be among Heller’s “sensitive places.” He ruled the gun ban unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bonidy and the parking lot at the Avon Post Office.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 03-06-2015 at 06:18 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Hasn't there already been a SCOTUS ruling on possession of a firearm on postal property(not inside buildings)?

    Sorry I guess not a SCOTUS ruling but a 10th circuit. FUQ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...e-post-office/

    In the District Court, Judge Richard Matsch upheld the postal ban for the post office lobby (where patrons access their mail boxes), ruling it to be among Heller’s “sensitive places.” He ruled the gun ban unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bonidy and the parking lot at the Avon Post Office.
    I acknowledge that - it was a decision in a court case.

    What we are talking about here was not involved in litigation, but was rather a preemptive action, initiated to make criminals of the otherwise innocent AND it was apparently made w/o public disclosure. Equally curious is that it does not apply to the entire state, but only select municipalities. Really? Are these municipalities federal property? (extreme sarcasm)

    From where does the judge get that authority?
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-06-2015 at 07:28 AM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    [ ... ]From where does the judge get that authority?
    As cited in paragraph one of her order;

    18 USC 930(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    The proceeding of the court to post office property is controversial.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    "Standing on Federal Property" - how long before somebody interprets that to mean National Forests and Parks as well?

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    "Standing on Federal Property" - how long before somebody interprets that to mean National Forests and Parks as well?
    Or streets and highways built with federal funds. All such "grants" generally come with strings attached.

    Or retail establishments that sell products involved in interstate commerce.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    Chief US District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson amendment 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) and extended General Order 13-54-1 to include standing on Federal Property with weapons and not just entering buildings with weapons on March 2, 2015.
    This is "our" Government setting up the protesters that they know are going to be with weapons on March 7th to violate a newly amended Federal law and be subject to arrest and prosecution. Furthermore, it is even more apparent that it is retaliatory by the Government since they only changed general order 13-54-1 specifically for Yakima, Richland and Spokane. This is an intentional and malicious act against the people.

    Link to the order

    http://1.usa.gov/1wZHbuZ

    WELL DONE Bill! Thanks for posting that.

    ‘Astroturf’ versus real grassroots in Evergreen State

    http://www.examiner.com/article/astr...vergreen-state

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    WELL DONE Bill! Thanks for posting that. ‘Astroturf’ versus real grassroots in Evergreen State
    http://www.examiner.com/article/astr...vergreen-state
    "You have asked to connect securely to www.examiner.com, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure. Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Look, the federal court does NOT control the building property. That piece of property is owned and controlled by the GSA, not the court.

    http://www.spokanecounty.org/pubpada...elSummary.aspx

    http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/18...USCH_v4.action

    http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104869

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Look, the federal court does NOT control the building property. That piece of property is owned and controlled by the GSA, not the court.

    http://www.spokanecounty.org/pubpada...elSummary.aspx

    http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/18...USCH_v4.action

    http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104869
    You may be right, but I don't see the evidence that supports your unspoken contention.

    Which agency owns the buildings and property is not the sole standard.

    What are the lease terms, applicable rules, laws, agreements, and other legal means by which (in this case) the court can introduce something that effects us?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wowwie!!!

    Bill got the date wrong,,,, It Is NOW!!!! Friday the 6th...

    Live coverage coming in....


    http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-new...house/31653838
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Well done. Great pics. Great sound bites!

    http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/31654198

    On Thursday, as authorities prepared for the planned demonstration, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Eastern Washington issued a news release advising of a recent rule change on courthouse property. A general order, signed by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson on Monday, extends a firearms ban at the courthouse to the grounds surrounding the courthouse and adjacent U.S. Post Office.

    http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-firearms-ban/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-06-2015 at 03:29 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You may be right, but I don't see the evidence that supports your unspoken contention.

    Which agency owns the buildings and property is not the sole standard.

    What are the lease terms, applicable rules, laws, agreements, and other legal means by which (in this case) the court can introduce something that effects us?
    The lease/agreement between the court and the GSA should be readily available through FOIA.

    What I posted shows that the building and grounds are under GSA control.

    If the guy violated federal law the FBI would not have cut him loose.

    Also, today it appears that Homeland security did the harassing, not the Marshal Service. The Marshal Service is the enforcement arm of the federal courts.

    I wish him well, but I have seen to many attorneys not do their homework.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Starks View Post
    Chief US District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson amendment 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) and extended General Order 13-54-1 to include standing on Federal Property with weapons and not just entering buildings with weapons on March 2, 2015.
    This is "our" Government setting up the protesters that they know are going to be with weapons on March 6th to violate a newly amended Federal law and be subject to arrest and prosecution. Furthermore, it is even more apparent that it is retaliatory by the Government since they only changed general order 13-54-1 specifically for Yakima, Richland and Spokane. This is an intentional and malicious act against the people.

    Link to the order

    http://1.usa.gov/1wZHbuZ

    <edit> fixed the date to March 6th.
    18 USC 930(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.



    Here is a link to the ruling the judge is only banning firearms on court house grounds and then only in a few selected courts and one post office, I am assuming is appurtenant to the Spokane courthouse.

    http://www.waed.uscourts.gov/sites/d...es/15-54-1.pdf
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 03-06-2015 at 08:34 PM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    General Orders / Policy or Law ?


    General orders of the Eastern District
    : scroll down to "Security" The same Judge wrote the previous general order.

    It appears authority is based upon the concensus of a "majority of Article III Judges".

    Bio of the Judge, no surprises here. Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson

    I understand the relevant section of 18 USC to mean prior notification must be given in order to enforce the order.
    If there is no notifiction then enforcement is not possible.

    I read the Judges order to mean a political statement as the order is not enforcable.

    There is some wording in the code and the judges order that is peculiar.
    I believe the word "appurtenant" takes the meaning of an easment, that tack would put the citizens in jeopardy of arrest only if they "knowingly" violated the order.

    Note subsection (d) below includes "or other lawful purposes"
    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.
    (c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    (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.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (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.
    (2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
    (3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.




    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    [B][ ... ] If there is no notifiction then enforcement is not possible. I read the Judges order to mean a political statement as the order is not enforcable.
    One may beat the rap but not the ride. The common meaning of appurtenant is attached, contenment, tenement.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-07-2015 at 07:31 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

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