Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Court rules open carry on military bases not unlawful!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    is anybody an expert on the statutes and regulations applicable to carry on military bases?

    --

    http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Virginia

    Jeffrey Raynor (Virginia) He was charged with carrying a concealed pistol and possessing a firearm on a military installation. Neither charge was supported by the statutory language. The government’s evidence was that the grip, hammer, and the back part of the slide were visible and that it was immediately recognizable as a pistol. The evidence also showed that he was traveling in a motor vehicle on a road and was not in “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government....” He was found not guilty of both charges according to defense counsel’s letter of April 17, 2006.




  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    More information needed. Where did this occur? What law was applied? Why was Raynor on the installation? In which court was the case heard?



    Mike wrote:
    is anybody an expert on the statutes and regulations applicable to carry on military bases?

    --

    http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx#Virginia

    Jeffrey Raynor (Virginia) He was charged with carrying a concealed pistol and possessing a firearm on a military installation. Neither charge was supported by the statutory language. The government’s evidence was that the grip, hammer, and the back part of the slide were visible and that it was immediately recognizable as a pistol. The evidence also showed that he was traveling in a motor vehicle on a road and was not in “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government....” He was found not guilty of both charges according to defense counsel’s letter of April 17, 2006.



  3. #3
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Mike,


    Can you get the case for us to read?

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    I have searched the net, and can find nothing but the same thing Mike posted. When I get to work, I will see if I can find something on the subscription Law sites.

    Those of us that live near or work on military bases need to know what has happened in this case, in detail.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    I know I researched the regs in depth a few years ago for Ft Belvoir. I never considered that the base/post might not in itself be ruled federal property.

    In general, it's up to the commanding officer at each base to permit or disallow firearms in, say, dorms or housing. At the time I did the research, I didn't think much beyond that. I remember thinking most bases/posts I had been on had pretty much the same rules, and that Belvoir's were a bit more lax, but unfortunately I can't recall any of the details.

    Their regulation is available through their web site. I'll try to find it again - I recall I had to dig pretty deep - and may reference statutes on which the reg is built.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    I have searched the net, and can find nothing but the same thing Mike posted. When I get to work, I will see if I can find something on the subscription Law sites.

    Those of us that live near or work on military bases need to know what has happened in this case, in detail.

    Regards
    +1

    This is very interesting. Our (the base I work at) policy is no firearms period (among other things). I wonder what implications this will have.

    Just to give you all anidea of the ingenious method we have of securing a sevicemember's weapon:

    • ------------------------------------.
    • ------------------------------------.
    • ------------------------------------.
    • ------------------------------------.
    • Gateguard calls for watch commander.
    • Watch commander arrives, escorts you to security office.
    • The security office, in which contains the personal weapons locker, is at least halfway across base.
    • You walk with the watch commander to the PWL.
    • You unload and show clear.
    • ... paperwork...
    During this whole evolution, I'm CCW.Normally, I cannot carry anywhere on the base. I've been told to MEET the watch commander at the security office. It doesn't happen often, but it's still unescorted. :?

    Editedto remove military procedures.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Spokane, WA, ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Where, you, the Government, sends me, , Germany
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    WOW, I sure would like more information on this. As an active duty member I am accountable to the orders and regulations by my superiors but some of the orders are unlawful.

    As we are all aware the commanding general of USARAK has made both open carry and CCW on or off post by active duty members a violation of an order. I am sure that we could get a better foothold and get this "policy" revoked if there were more information on this case.

    As for POF, personally owned firearms, they are covered in most base regulations and in the 190 series regulations. A good place for research is www.usapa.army.mil and will give access to army regs.

    More info please.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Yeah, really need more information . . .

    Somebody can get the information . . .

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    OK - got this from an attorney familiar with the case: "Raynor was [charged under] 18 USC Sec. 930 [and not the regulation applicable to the Pentagon reservation].

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    So, wrong charge for the offense, andnot a Second Amendment victory of any sort.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Raynor was not on the Pentagon reservation - apparently was on Quantico - so, maybe, unless a given base has a regulation against it, OC and possession say in trunks, is lawful on military bases.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Raynor was not on the Pentagon reservation - apparently was on Quantico - so, maybe, unless a given base has a regulation against it, OC and possession say in trunks, is lawful on military bases.
    If it was Quantico, there are a range of possibilities. There is "Main Side", "Basic School" side, and the roads in between.

    If he was on Main Side, he would most certainly be in violation of the Commandants orders against POW on base.

    If he was on one of the connector roads between main side and the western half of the base, those are public roads, and generally citizens traveling them would NOT fall under the orders issued by the Commandant. In fact there are guard posts at either end of the public areas of those roads. While these roads do cross a part of the federal reservation, they are public roads, not maintained by Quantico, and they are frequented by a lot of people not necessarily entering the base proper.

    If he was on the Basic School side of the base, there are public roads that cross the base, and generally people have a right of passage through the base. Also the Ranges are on the Basic school side, and citizens can and do enter that portion of the base for competitions, and other purposes with firearms. In fact most of the hunting on the base is on that western portion.

    There are also non military facilities on the western part of the base that do not fall under the directives of the Commandant.

    We really need to know more about what happened here.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    If nothing else, the title is false and should be changed. There are people that will just remember the post's title and incorporate that in the minds as the law. I understand that people like to write (and read) sexy titled threads but misleading readers is a disservice.

Posting Permissions

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