Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Carrying at the Social Security office

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    The sign on the front door says no, citing that it's a Federal building (USC 18). And it specifically states that a CPL does not authorize carrying.

    Is this another one of those "no illegal weapons allowed" situations? Or does the fact that it's a Fed building mean that State carry laws do not apply?

    To be clear, the SSA building is a stand-alone structure and is not attached to, nor does it share property with, any courthouse, police station, etc.

  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I refer you to here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=15641
    and to here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/15400.html

    Unless Lonnie would like to say whether he thinks this is no longer a "don't test this" situation, technically it's a Federal Facility and personal protection is a lawful activity.

    Do you see me lining up for it? Hell no!
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Letters have been sent to the US Attorney from me & the folks that I was working with in Oregon & Ohio. At this time we have not heard anything back yet.



  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    I refer you to here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=15641
    and to here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/15400.html

    Unless Lonnie would like to say whether he thinks this is no longer a "don't test this" situation, technically it's a Federal Facility and personal protection is a lawful activity.

    Do you see me lining up for it? Hell no!
    Agreed, don't test this in court.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Social Security benefits can now be applied for online. No need to visit this victim disarmament zone.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    I have NO interest in becoming a test subject. I drove the Mrs. there today for her to take care of some paperwork and saw the sign on the front door as we went in. What caught my attention was the fact that the sign specifically stated that CPLs make no difference. I'd never seen that on a sign before.

    I agree that self-defense qualifies as a "lawful purpose" but, again, I have no burning desire to test the legal language either in practice or in court.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Is DSHS federal?

    I'm going to the DSHS with a freind to file a claim for the crime victims fund (he can't work) and am wondering if I can quasi-open carry there.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    Is DSHS federal?
    DSHS is state.

  9. #9
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    Is DSHS federal?

    I'm going to the DSHS with a freind to file a claim for the crime victims fund (he can't work) and am wondering if I can quasi-open carry there.
    You can legally OC there. They might inform you that all future correspondance between you and their office must be in writing and not in person from that point on though.

    (They can do that.)

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

    Post imported post

    cynicist wrote:
    Is DSHS federal?

    I'm going to the DSHS with a freind to file a claim for the crime victims fund (he can't work) and am wondering if I can quasi-open carry there.
    I'm gonna get hammered for this but here goes...
    Those folks at DSHS deal with some of the most unpredictable & unruly folks on a daily basis. Its one of those places that although you are well within your rights to carry, I personally would CC. And like Shadowfax stated you might have to do the rest by correspondence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    cynicist wrote:
    Is DSHS federal?

    I'm going to the DSHS with a freind to file a claim for the crime victims fund (he can't work) and am wondering if I can quasi-open carry there.
    I'm gonna get hammered for this but here goes...
    Those folks at DSHS deal with some of the most unpredictable & unruly folks on a daily basis. Its one of those places that although you are well within your rights to carry, I personally would CC. And like Shadowfax stated you might have to do the rest by correspondence.
    +1

    I wouldn't hammer you for your statement. The folks who have frequent business with DSHS are usually the dregs of society. (Yes, there are many cases with honest, decent folks, but those folks aren't the ones who require frequent attention from the office...)

    CC at DSHS and you won't regret it. OC at DSHS and you'll regret it if you everwant to go in face-to-face there again.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    You can legally OC there. They might inform you that all future correspondance between you and their office must be in writing and not in person from that point on though.

    (They can do that.)
    Can you give us some sort of legal justification for your statement that they can do that? If they are doing it because you are carrying, is this not a violation of state preemption that they can't keep you from carrying?

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    For reasons I won't get into I was parked outside of DSHS the other day reading a book when I noticed three guys that were smoking standing by the door watching cars and people, spread out and it looked like they were casing me or my vehicle. I pretended not to notice them but grabbed my unloaded pistol and stuck it under my leg and held my loaded magizine in the other, pretended to continue reading.I did look up to make cursory eyecontact but that didn't seem to deter them. Things looked like they were going to get tense until a Vet from 'nam....(patches on jacket makes me assume this) walked up and started discussing something with one of the guys and they all walked away, and disappeared. He left also but I think he averted a bad situation.Later when I was telling someone this they were like "oh bet you couldn't wait to use your gun" and I told them no I was praying the whole time that I hoped I didn't have to use it but was certainly glad I had it on me.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, fl
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I think it's rather sad that people think that people that carry a gun for defence want to just blast somebody. I guess with all the propagnda on t.v why would they think any differently? two kinds of people according to t.v carry guns...cops and bad guys. thanks t.v! oh wait tree kinds...cops, bad guys, and paranoid wackjobs...there you go.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    yea they felt sheepish after I corrected them on my attitude.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Can you give us some sort of legal justification for your statement that they can do that? If they are doing it because you are carrying, is this not a violation of state preemption that they can't keep you from carrying?
    They have WAC's thatallow them to require all future business correspondance to be done in writing for any reason the officer sees fit. They don't have to give youa reason.

    If you want the actual WAC I'll see if I can get a copy of it, but it may take some time. My source is a relative who works for the state in a division of the DSHS.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    Can you give us some sort of legal justification for your statement that they can do that? If they are doing it because you are carrying, is this not a violation of state preemption that they can't keep you from carrying?
    They have WAC's thatallow them to require all future business correspondance to be done in writing for any reason the officer sees fit. They don't have to give youa reason.

    If you want the actual WAC I'll see if I can get a copy of it, but it may take some time. My source is a relative who works for the state in a division of the DSHS.
    I think it would be great if you could post the WAC here. General forum guidelines ask us to make original sources available so that we all have them in the event it becomes an issue. Otherwise it is one of those "my relative who works for ... said...".

    Thanks.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    "oh bet you couldn't wait to use your gun"
    Man, I hate that. I just had that conversation with a friend the other night. He started it off with, "I'm worried about you." Me: Why? "It seems like you just want to shoot somebody." Me: Why would you ever think that about me?! "You carry that gun EVERYWHERE. I mean, you carry it in Wal-Mart for crying out loud. It's like you're looking for trouble."

    What the hell is wrong with people? This from a conservative gun owner, too... (He doesn't hold a CPL. Has no interest. He does transport loaded guns in his vehicle. I've informed him of the laws, he isn't interested. Somehow the law abiding guy - me - is the one he's worried about? People tick me off.)


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    Yep, it's a well-established fact that people who are prepared for something desperately want it to happen. That's why some people become doctors and EMTs; because they desperately want people to get injured and mangled. Firemen? You guessed it. They LOVE it when houses burn down. Hell, cops often join hands and pray for violent crime, domestic abuse, and drunk driving.

    The truth is that some people simply do not have the stomach to face certain realities. Being unprepared helps maintain their bubble, the illusion that "those things" will never happen. When they meet someone who IS prepared it reminds them of what they've been trying to ignore and they are then presented with a choice:

    1. Face their fears and deal with them, or
    2. Maintain their illusion by dismissing you as a nutjob.

    I'm no psychologist but I know which one looks a lot easier to ME.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    I refer you to here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=15641
    and to here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/15400.html

    Unless Lonnie would like to say whether he thinks this is no longer a "don't test this" situation, technically it's a Federal Facility and personal protection is a lawful activity.

    Do you see me lining up for it? Hell no!
    Agreed, don't test this in court.
    Lonnie,

    Do you have any case law on a definition of lawful purpose that would trump section 101 of the GCA of'68?

  21. #21
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Back in August I posted this from a friend of mine in Ohio:
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/15400.html

    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.


    ** Update: Three of us have been working on this issue and none of us have heard back from the US Attys office as of yet.


Posting Permissions

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