Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Carrying on Federal Gov't Property?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    Do to my job I sometimes have to got on government property. My question is can I carry on the property. The way I read the law the answer is yes. This is what the law says read the bottom part where it defines federal facility. What if it has a no firearms sign, is it valid as it would be on private property.

    I never know when I will need to go there so its not like I can just leave my pistol at home that day.

    Sec. 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 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.

    (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.

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Some may debateif "other lawful purpose" would cover someone carrying in accordance with all other laws. Anyone who tries it may wind up being a test case. If your federal gov't property happens to be a post office by chance though, per 39 CFR 232.1 it is prohibited except for official purposes.

    39 CFR 232.1

    Weapons and explosives
    . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    I'm sorry I guess I'm not being clear enough. I drive a tow truck for a living. I'm talking about carrying in the parking lot not in the building. I do see what you mean by lawful carry but I wouldn't be in the buildings.

    The places I am talking about are General Dynamic and Detroit Arsenal. These are govn't defense contractors. The property is owned by the Federal Gov't and leased to these companys.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Plymouth/Canton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    i would start making some phone calls. call an attorney... call the county prosecutor... call the feds... try to RECORD the conversation...

  5. #5
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    THway wrote:
    i would start making some phone calls. call an attorney... call the county prosecutor... call the feds... try to RECORD the conversation...
    This is good advice. I would like to assume that the property, being privately owned, is not federal property even though there are federal contracts involved. Even though federal agencies may be employed at that site, I would like to think that the property would still be considered private.

    I'm not an attorney though, and I'd consult an attorney who deals with federal law before you risk it.

    That section the OP copied and pasted is quite clear on actual federal property. Unless you feel like spending a lot of money in court and setting a legal precedent for "other lawful purpose" it's best not to carry on federal property. With judges the way they are today, it's not a risk I'd take on true federal property.

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    THway wrote:
    i would start making some phone calls. call an attorney... call the county prosecutor... call the feds... try to RECORD the conversation...
    This is good advice. I would like to assume that the property, being privately owned, is not federal property even though there are federal contracts involved. Even though federal agencies may be employed at that site, I would like to think that the property would still be considered private.

    I'm not an attorney though, and I'd consult an attorney who deals with federal law before you risk it.

    That section the OP copied and pasted is quite clear on actual federal property. Unless you feel like spending a lot of money in court and setting a legal precedent for "other lawful purpose" it's best not to carry on federal property. With judges the way they are today, it's not a risk I'd take on true federal property.
    Be very careful about NOT GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE YOURSELF in the asking of any questions in this area!

    JoeSparky
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Section 930 of Chapter 44 of 18 US Code was enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    Most people do not read the entire act.

    Section 930 has subsection d (3) which states:

    d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    Lawful purpose does not appear in Section 921, Definitions so the question now arises, what is a lawful purpose?

    Section 101 of the Act is not crystal clear, but comes closest to telling us what a lawful purpose is:


    Title I -- State


    Firearms Control


    Assistance

    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.



    * * * *


    Chapter 44 Firearms

    Sec.

    921. Definitions.

    922. Unlawful acts.

    923. Licensing.

    924. Penalties.

    925. Exceptions: Relief from disabilities.

    925A. Remedy for erroneous denial of firearms.

    926. Rules and regulations.

    926A. Interstate transportation of firearms.

    927. Effect on State law.

    928. Separability.

    929. Use of restricted ammunition.

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



    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    The re bolding of personal protection is mine.

    If you possess a firearm for personal protection, then it seems to be a valid argument that exception d (3) applies.

    Note that this has NOTHING to do with the post office, which prohibits firearms under a separate law with an OFFICIAL purposes exception, not a lawful purposes exception.

    Again IANAL but I did read the entire act from the beginning.

    P.S. The NRA negotiated this crappy legislation, hence NRA = Negotiate Rights Away.
    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 inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Interesting thread.

    Thundar's post seems to indicate a right to OC for personal protection on federal lands, such as national parks and forests. Good to know.

    I also agree, Thundar.

    The NRA is not the most stalwart and vigilant gun rights group in America anymore.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    From my understanding in Texas the term "premises" means inside of the building but for federal facilities it is the property itself including the parking lot. I was entering the parking lot of a federal facility (although I didn't know that I was going to one, I just knew I was going to a job site)and the security gaurd asked ifI had any weaponsto whichIreplied yes and he said he couldn't let me onto the property even if I left it in my car.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Government property, is much different than Government Installations.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    So this needs to be challenged in court? or after someone has been arrested?

  12. #12
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    seems to indicate a right to OC for personal protection on federal lands, such as national parks and forests.
    You cannot OC or CC in a National Park, that's another set of regulations.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    199

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    seems to indicate a right to OC for personal protection on federal lands, such as national parks and forests.
    You cannot OC or CC in a National Park, that's another set of regulations.
    Some of us hope that this will change real soon.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Don't some of these federal facility parking lots have security gates at the entrance? Seems like you might be able to check your weapon with the guards-pick up on the way out- if they don't allow weapons on the premises.

    Just a thought.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Smithfield, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Everything that I have seen, even at the facility I work at, Personal Firearms of any kind are prohibited on everywhere it is gov't property.



    If you get caught you will automatically be banned from the grounds, although the chances of a vehicle search are slim to none at most federal buildings, unless there is manned checkpoint at the entrance to the grounds.



    Mostfederal places do not have a provision for checking personal firearms.

    My advice would be to keep it out of plain view and you will most likely be ok.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Smithfield, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    this is in reference to the contractor post above, I hit the wrong quote tab, sorry




    Just a note on this....



    We had a contractor get banned from our grounds because one of our officers noticed a loaded .22 pistol in his truck.


Posting Permissions

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