Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: CC or OC in Federal Bldgs

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    EDIT: This is the address I found the law at: http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/conte...18_usc_930.htm

    I found this while searching on legalities of carrying if you have to go to the post office. I have highlighted in blue and boldened what I believe to be the relevent portions of this:







    18 USC Sec. 930
    01/26/98


    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS


    HEADING


    Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    STATUTE

    (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 or attempts to kill 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, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.
    (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 in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

    (e)(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 2 1/2 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.


    Just wanted to get everyone elses opinion on this. What do you guys think? I am a registered CHL holder and am legally allowed to CC or OC (though when it comes to federal bldgs I think I'll still CC), so would that fall under section (d), subsection (3), thelawful carrying of firearms orother dangerous weapons in aFederal facility in incident to hunting or other lawful purposes? Any one ever tested the waters in this matter? To me, it seems like because I am licensed with in the state of Oregon to carry a handgun, it would be lawful, but would the laws all of sudden change being on federal property even though it is with in the state of Oregon? Let the debate begin!

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    so federal building would be ok, but not Federal courts? (given (e)(1) and (e)(2) )
    Honestly (d) and (e) seem somewhat contradictory?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    My understanding of it seems to be that there are two sections. The first section is a,b,c, and d. This one applies to federal facilities (other than federal courts).

    The second section is e. This one applies to courts. We would have to see what 'lawful purposes' means though...

    What i get from it:
    1- We are definitely not allowed to carry in fed. courts (e).
    2- We are potentially able to carry in other federal buildings, assuming 'lawful purposes' means CCWs.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    so federal building would be ok, but not Federal courts? (given (e)(1) and (e)(2) )
    Honestly (d) and (e) seem somewhat contradictory?
    You have to remember (d) only applies to (a), not (e).



    PS I am going to post this on one of the non-state forum boards, as well. Where do you think I should post? Hot Topics? Open Carry questions? Input in this would be useful as well

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    This has been gone over a bajillion and a half plus one to the power of three times, and the general consensus is it's:

    1. Legal, but
    2. Highly unclear, and
    3. Untested.

    There was once something hinging on a test case, but if memory serves, they dodged the issue and make it a trespass case instead.

    Basically, if you carry in a federal building, be aware that you are going to be a test case, and expect to spend some significant time in federal PMITA prison while you prove what you did wasn't illegal, at you (very significant) expense.

    ETA: OR maybe it was, because he had been asked to leave and refused, he was now carrying a firearm and no longer there for a lawful purpose, therefore affirming part of the law, but not necessarily the part we care about. That seems more likely. Okay, bye now.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Keane wrote:
    We would have to see what 'lawful purposes' means though...
    I think thatpersonal protectionis a lawful purpose, according to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the bold in the text is mine):

    Chapter 44. Firearms

    (Title18, U.S. Code, Sections 921-929)

    PURPOSE

    SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

    Link: http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#TITLE%20I
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Keane wrote:
    We would have to see what 'lawful purposes' means though...
    I think thatpersonal protectionis a lawful purpose, according to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the bold in the text is mine):
    The Federal social security building near my house has a sign that SPECIFICALLY says that having a state issued CWL does NOT allow you to carry in the building. I agree that the wording of chapter 44 would allow all lawful carry but I believe case law doesn't agree.

  8. #8
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    A friend in Ohio sent me this today and well worth the read:
    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conce...rude-awakening

    By Ken Hanson, Esq.
    Legislative Chair
    Buckeye Firearms Association

    There is considerable confusion over whether an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL) can carry a concealed firearm at the post office. This confusion mostly centers around the wording on the signs posted at the post office. The signs quote two sections of federal regulation - 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1.
    Looking at 18 USC 930, it would appear, at first blush, that carrying firearms is prohibited. That section provides:
    1. § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities Release date: 2004-08-06
      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.
    So part of the confusion is rooted in the wording of this section. The prohibition applies to "Federal facilit(ies)" except as provide for in subsection (d). Subsection (d) provides:
    1. (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.
    Many people have seized upon (d)(3) with the argument that they have a CHL, so their carrying of a firearm is an "other lawful purpose" and therefore they are exempt from the sign. This is problematic for several reasons. First, 39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:
    1. § 410. Application of other laws Release date: 2003-06-24
      (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.
      (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:
      (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;
      (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;
    Thus it would appear, by operation of 39 USC 410, that 18 USC 930, a law that deals generally with Federal property, does not apply to the Powers of the Postal Service. Rather, the only provisions of 18 USC that would apply are those specific to the post office e.g. Theft of Mail, Robbing Post Offices, Stealing Postal Money Orders etc. Further evidence of the proposition that 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices is in the numbering of the aforementioned 39 CFR 232.1. As we will later examine, 39 CFR 232.1 clearly prohibits carrying firearms. CFR sections typically draw their numbering from the underlying laws that they are promulgated under, although there are numerous exceptions. The numbering of 39 CFR would be further evidence that 39 USC controls the situation, and not 18 USC.
    The second problem with relying on 18 USC 930(d)(3) is that this section in no way EMPOWERS anyone to carry a gun; rather, that section simply states that 18 USC 930 does not apply to someone is lawfully carrying a gun incident to some lawful purpose. In Ohio's law, there is a big difference between something NOT BEING PROHIBITED and something BEING SPECIFICALLY LICENSED. Just because a statute says that certain conduct is not prohibited by that particular statute does not automatically equate into authority to engage in the conduct.
    This is an important distinction, because the other part of the post office sign cites 39 CFR 232.1, which clearly does prohibit guns in post offices. In pertinent part, it states:
    1. (l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
    The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.
    First, as we previously examined, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, as we previously examined, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.
    This being the case, at a minimum, we have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. That being the case, an Ohio CHL is prohibited from carrying at the post office by Ohio's criminal trespass. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that the Ohio CHL would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.
    I do not want to be right about the answer to this question, because I personally see no problem with a CHL carrying in a post office. However, I think some of the information/discussion going on in forums has the potential to expose the Ohio CHL to a rude awakening.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...39cfr232.1.pdf

    Nice catch, M1Gunr; here'salink to39 CFR 232. I don't have a lot of time, other wise I would have tried to find one more recent 2003, but it is a gov site, so it should be pretty accurate

  10. #10
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    http://lists.powerblogs.com/pipermai...ly/013512.html


    Code:
    Posted by Eugene Volokh:
    More on Guns in Post Office Parking Lots:
    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1215626237
    
    
    Monday, the magistrate judge in U.S. v. Dorosan, which I blogged about
    [1]here, issued a further opinion, including this on the Second
    Amendment question (which is whether the federal government could
    criminalize the bringing of guns onto post office property, including
    leaving them in a car parked in the parking lot):
    
    The Court has considered defense counsel's argument that Dorosan's
    vehicle is an extension of his home; however, that result obtains
    only when the vehicle is not parked on postal property where access
    is restricted. In this case, the restricted employee parking and
    loading area where Dorosan parked his vehicle during his shift
    bears signs that advise all who enter the gates, as follows:
    
    Vehicles and their contents brought into, while on, or being
    removed from restricted nonpublic areas are subject to inspection.
    A prominently displayed sign shall advise in advance that vehicles
    and their contents are subject to inspection when entering the
    restricted nonpublic area, while in the confines of the area, or
    when leaving the area. Persons entering these areas who object and
    refuse to consent to the inspection of the vehicle, its contents,
    or both, may be denied entry; after entering the area without
    objection, consent shall be implied. A full search of a person and
    any vehicle driven or occupied by the person may accompany an
    arrest.
    
    An area, such as the Gretna Post Office's employee parking lot,
    which bears warnings the likes of that aforestated can hardly be
    analogized to "home sweet home" or an extension of same. By the
    same token, privately owned vehicles parked on such "postal
    property" cannot be reasonably be considered an extension of home.
    The "postal property" at issue more closely approximates one of
    those "sensitive places" excepted by the Supreme Court in Heller,
    the Court's latest opinion addressing the Second Amendment "right
    to bear arms." Certainly a loaded semi-automatic weapon, even if
    secured in the locked glove compartment of a privately owned
    vehicle, creates an opportunity for violence on such "postal
    property" -- i.e., a "sensitive" area where access is restricted
    for reasons of facilitating the movement of inbound and outbound
    mail entrusted to the USPS.
    
    [Footnote, moved: In Heller, the Supreme Court cautioned that
    "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the
    longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons
    and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
    in sensitive places ...." District of Columbia v. Heller (holding
    that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
    secures the fundamental right of all Americans to bear arms).]
    
    Eradicating the potential for deadly workplace violence and
    ensuring the safety of both Government employees and the public on
    "postal property" is exactly the security measure that the
    regulation at issue was designed to effect. The regulation is an
    adjunct of the Postal Service's policies and more particularly the
    "zero tolerance" of workplace violence. Indeed, many of those who
    use postal facilities, including postal workers, do so from
    necessity, not choice; many members of the public must go to a post
    office to conduct their business and personal correspondence,
    carrying cash for stamps or money orders. Postal employees must
    enter and exit the postal property at issue carrying the U.S. mail.
    
    As previously addressed in this Court's prior opinion, the postal
    regulation at issue (39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)) passes Second Amendment
    constitutional muster and is reasonable as applied to Dorosan. The
    Government has a significant interest in protecting the integrity
    of the purposes to which it has dedicated the property
    (facilitating postal transactions) and ensuring the security of
    postal employees and the public who must: (1) visit postal property
    to conduct official and personal business; (2) wait single file in
    roped off lines inside of postal facilities; (3) idle in vehicles
    single file in "snorkel lanes" 21 on postal property to use "drive
    and drop" mail receptacles placed outside of the Post Office
    building; and (4) carry cash or other legal tender for stamps,
    money orders, passports and other goods and services provided by
    the United States Postal Service.
    
    Noting the fact that there were no signs prominently displayed
    outside of the Gretna Post Office building publishing the
    regulation's prohibition against carrying firearms (§ 232.1(l)) or
    animals (§ 232.1(j)) on "postal property," the defendant argued
    that the statute was vague, overly broad and unconstitutional as
    applied to the defendant. More particularly, defense counsel
    suggested that the regulation effectively outlaws conduct including
    matriculating the drop box lane in a vehicle with either a firearm
    or an animal safely stowed within its confines. The undersigned
    Magistrate Judge expresses no opinion whatsoever as to the
    constitutionality of regulation's ban on carrying firearms or
    animals in public areas without official purpose -- i.e., operating
    a vehicle through the "snorkel lane" of the Gretna Post Office
    while accompanied by a pet Shih Tzu, other non-seeing eye dog or,
    perhaps, armed with a loaded handgun stowed in the glove
    compartment. Neither of those issues are before the Court in this
    case, which involves the prohibited conduct of carrying and storing
    firearms without official purpose in the gated/restricted access
    employee parking, loading and unloading area of the subject "postal
    property."
    
    References
    
    1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1215449415

  11. #11
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I fired off my letters & email today to the US Attorney's Office in both Tacoma and Seattle for answers. Specifically, I requested the following questions to be addressed:

    Is self-defense considered "other lawful purpose" under 18 USC §930(d)(3)?

    Is the public access area of a postal facility considered a federal facility?

    Would a person exempted under 18 USC §930(d)(3) still be subject to prosecution under 39 CFR §232.1(l)? If so, is the exemption recognized in 18 USC §930(d)(3) rendered inoperable under any other provisions of federal code?

    39 CFR §232.1(l) does not specify buildings but "postal property". Does this prohibit the possession of firearms within the approach, collection or parking areas accessible to the public located outside of the buildings?

    Under 39 CFR §232.1(l) the only exemption is "except for official purposes". What constitutes "official purposes"? Is the transaction of normal business in the public area of such facility an "official purpose"? If not, would a person licensed or authorized to carry firearms in the course of their business or duties be subject to prosecution if armed while conducting normal business in the public area of such facility if the transaction is not related to their business or duties?

Posting Permissions

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