Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: carry in federal facility (besides court) legal if....

  1. #1
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167

    carry in federal facility (besides court) legal if....

    so i was reading 18 US Code 930 and i'm confused. as i read it, if: someone possesses a carry permit, or if their state doesn't require a permit to legally carry and they qualify under that state's laws, then they are legally allowed to carry in a federal facility (except court facility).

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930


    thoughts?
    Last edited by hammer6; 07-03-2016 at 03:56 PM.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    "(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."
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
    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 hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    "(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."
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
    what am i missing?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot
    "(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."
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    what am i missing?
    Missing that your/our ability to legally carry there has been restricted.
    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 hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Missing that your/our ability to legally carry there has been restricted.
    i said a federal facility other than a federal court.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    "(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."
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    i said a federal facility other than a federal court.
    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

    etc, etc.
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    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

    etc, etc.

    are you deliberately missing my point? i concur that all these places are included in my phrasing "federal court". but i'm talking about all other federal facilities, other than the federal court and the ones you listed by name.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    so i was reading 18 US Code 930 and i'm confused. as i read it, if: someone possesses a carry permit, or if their state doesn't require a permit to legally carry and they qualify under that state's laws, then they are legally allowed to carry in a federal facility (except court facility).

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930


    thoughts?
    Please point to the section (other than for hunting purposes) that even implies that citizens are permitted to carry in a federal facility.

    I have carried, as a citizen, in a federal facility, but by invitation only.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Please point to the section (other than for hunting purposes) that even implies that citizens are permitted to carry in a federal facility.

    I have carried, as a citizen, in a federal facility, but by invitation only.
    (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.



    if a method of carry is legal in your state, and you qualify for it, is that not considered a "lawful purpose", and eligible under the exemption of this federal law?

    i'll add - (1) and (2) are eligible exemptions to carry in federal court facilities.
    Last edited by hammer6; 07-03-2016 at 05:01 PM. Reason: add
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    ...if a method of carry is legal in your state, and you qualify for it, is that not considered a "lawful purpose", and eligible under the exemption of this federal law?...
    The federal facility is outside the jurisdiction of the state laws. You'd have to meet the "lawful purposes" as recognized by federal laws.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The federal facility is outside the jurisdiction of the state laws. You'd have to meet the "lawful purposes" as recognized by federal laws.
    found this from 2010

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-purposes-quot
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    (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.



    if a method of carry is legal in your state, and you qualify for it, is that not considered a "lawful purpose", and eligible under the exemption of this federal law?

    i'll add - (1) and (2) are eligible exemptions to carry in federal court facilities.
    You may have a point. See United States v. Bass, 404 US 336 - Supreme Court 1971. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=3,36

  13. #13
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    The federal facility is outside the jurisdiction of the state laws. You'd have to meet the "lawful purposes" as recognized by federal laws.
    the way i read it is that, if it's not on the list of "unlawful purposes", it is therefore legal, based on the text of the supreme law, the 2nd amendment.

    just like federal law does not require a background check on the sale of a gun if the purchaser has a valid weapons license issued by that state.

    it's the florida state law that requires a background check even on those with CWFLs. that leads us into the confusing legalese concerning why the federal government can require a background check to be performed when the seller is a licensed seller, but not when they are a private person.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    You may have a point. See United States v. Bass, 404 US 336 - Supreme Court 1971. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=3,36
    yeah that's basically saying, if it's not prohibited, it's lawful.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Might point out that offices/facilities where NPS employees regularly work are similarly restricted.

    See if you can find others.
    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.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    the way i read it is that, if it's not on the list of "unlawful purposes", it is therefore legal, based on the text of the supreme law, the 2nd amendment...
    I don't dispute any of that. I'm just saying state laws have nothing to do with it.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I don't dispute any of that. I'm just saying state laws have nothing to do with it.
    what i mean by state laws is that if you are not in violation of any state statute that makes you a "prohibited person" thus disqualifying you from the "lawful use" exemption.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  18. #18
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    According to attorneys representing the BATFE, self defense is not a lawful purpose. They further cited convictions under 18 USC 930 that are currently under appeal.

  19. #19
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    According to attorneys representing the BATFE, self defense is not a lawful purpose. They further cited convictions under 18 USC 930 that are currently under appeal.
    correct me if i'm wrong but, wasn't there a recent SCOTUS ruling that said that the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of protection of self?


    added-
    but beyond that, if there's no "restriction" or "law" about something, it is defacto legal. so unless i can be pointed to the section that says "self defense is not a lawful purpose", then self defense in fact is a lawful purpose.
    Last edited by hammer6; 07-04-2016 at 10:11 AM. Reason: addition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  20. #20
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    Sounds good to me! Go for it! Carry into a federal building and make your case. Don't let them push you around. I wish you very good luck. Let us know how it works out for you. When do you expect to be doing this? I want to make sure I don't miss your post on the experience. Make sure you get video and audio. You will be a hero. We may have a parade with a band for you. Good luck.
    thanks for the input.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  21. #21
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    correct me if i'm wrong but, wasn't there a recent SCOTUS ruling that said that the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of protection of self?


    added-
    but beyond that, if there's no "restriction" or "law" about something, it is defacto legal. so unless i can be pointed to the section that says "self defense is not a lawful purpose", then self defense in fact is a lawful purpose.
    That was my take and was the reason I had my rep get the opinion.

    I thought it funny that the current enforcement criteria is dependent on trial court decisions contrary to the plain language of the statute. Before the recent cases most were pled out prior to trial. I will have to dig out the letter and get the case they cited.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I've always agreed with the OP's opinion on this, but I recognize that I do not live in a free country, nor one where the king follows his own laws.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  23. #23
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    According to attorneys representing the BATFE, self defense is not a lawful purpose. They further cited convictions under 18 USC 930 that are currently under appeal.
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I've always agreed with the OP's opinion on this, but I recognize that I do not live in a free country, nor one where the king follows his own laws.


    3 things i notice with this case: http://volokh.com/files/dorosan.pdf


    1 - the defendant argued "as a postal employee"
    after reading the decision, i can understand their ruling to mean that since he is a federal employee, he is subject to their regulations.

    2 - 2008 heller decision said right to bear applies in home
    so the decision in my link also used 2008 as an excuse to justify the law, since SCOTUS applied 2nd amendment only in home. even though the 5th circuit applied it outside home.

    3 - some recent court rulings have said that carry outside the home is protected by 2nd amendment
    the decision i cited held the understanding that carry outside the home was not protected, which is why they were able to come to this conclusion.



    i can understand the ruling to be based solely upon those facts....that as an employee, he is subject to regulations; that the second amendment only applies to carry for self defense inside the home, so they are able to prohibit carry in a post office; that carry outside the home is not a right, so carry on postal property can be prohibited.

    but note, in their last paragraph of the ruling, they cited ‘is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;’.

    in the Bonidy case (http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/u...et-Version.pdf) this was also a post office case, but the defendant argued for concealed carry in the post office. that court concluded open carry outside the home was a right, but in their current case, the post office regulation banning gun possession was valid.


    i'm led to believe that just like with the GFSZ (where the federal government "allows" people to carry there if they are licensed by their state AND their state OK's it), that the exception in 18 US Code 930 (d)(3) allows for citizens who are carrying lawfully under federal and state law, and such state does not prohibit carry in a post office by state statute, and as long as they are carrying openly, which would have to be legal in that state, to: carry openly on federal property, other than a federal court.
    Last edited by hammer6; 07-05-2016 at 12:19 AM. Reason: add quote and grammar and emphasis
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  24. #24
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167

    carry in federal facility (besides court) legal if....

    I'll add this too for additional thought... The Dorosan ruling said that 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) "as applied" is not unconstitutional.

    The Bonidy ruling says that the claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) are denied.

    In both cases it may be asserting that applying 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) to open carry is unconstitutional, based on the protection of 18 US Code 930 (d)(3) and 2nd amendment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by hammer6; 07-05-2016 at 01:13 AM.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    i'm led to believe that just like with the GFSZ (where the federal government "allows" people to carry there if they are licensed by their state AND their state OK's it), that the exception in 18 US Code 930 (d)(3) allows for citizens who are carrying lawfully under federal and state law, and such state does not prohibit carry in a post office by state statute, and as long as they are carrying openly, which would have to be legal in that state, to: carry openly on federal property, other than a federal court.
    Again, 18 USC §930(d)(3) does not apply to US Postal Service property - it is specifically exempted from such. 39 CFR §232.1(1) is the controlling factor here.

    As for whether or not "other lawful purposes" can be applied to open or concealed carry, I think you would require either a determination from the Attorney General or a federal Appellate Court ruling. A response from your congresscritter might not hurt, either.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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