H.A.F.B

imported post

So I was planning on taking my family to the air show today or tomorrow but wasn't sure what HAFB policy was for OC? Is that something one can do or not do? Just trying to find out what to expect.

imported post

Not sure about the legality of it, but even if it is legal, you are on U.S. Government property instead of Utah land.

You will lose your protection under the Utah code, and it most likely would not turn out well.

I say don't even try it, unless you have authorization from the base commander.

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

Not sure about the legality of it, but even if it is legal, you are on U.S. Government property instead of Utah land.

You will lose your protection under the Utah code, and it most likely would not turn out well.

I say don't even try it, unless you have authorization from the base commander.

Click to expand...

so that pretty much goes for concealed as well, just don't even try it?

imported post

bmeldrum wrote:

SGT Jensen wrote:

Not sure about the legality of it, but even if it is legal, you are on U.S. Government property instead of Utah land.

You will lose your protection under the Utah code, and it most likely would not turn out well.

I say don't even try it, unless you have authorization from the base commander.

Click to expand...

so that pretty much goes for concealed as well, just don't even try it?

Click to expand...

I believe that it is legal to carry concealed as long as you don't go into any buildings (don't walk through the hangar!). What I mean is that I can't find any law that would restrict CC on base. USC 18 section 930 restricts firearms of any sort in federal buildings.

But I could be missing something in the law, and I think you're wiser not to try it.

imported post

http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=14146
or
http://www.hill.af.mil/2009hillafbopenhouse.asp


LIST OF PROHIBITED ITEMS

The following items will not be allowed inside the 2009 Hill AFB Open House and Air Show:

Concealable Weapons

Firearms and Ammunition
Knives 4 inches or longer
Leatherman/Gerber type tools
Razor-type Blades and Utility Knives
Box Cutters


Self Defense Weapons

Mace or Pepper Spray
Martial Arts Weapons
Disabling Chemicals


Hazardous Items

Explosive Materials
Flammable Items
Matches or Lighters


Miscellaneous

Ice Axes or Ice Picks
Baseball Bats
Bows and Arrows
BB guns
Toy Weapons
Compressed Air Guns
Rollerblades
Skateboards
Scooters
Alcohol
Pets

imported post

bullseye wrote:

LIST OF PROHIBITED ITEMS

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not clear what this prohibition means. I doubt that it carries any legal force to civilians, though it would get you kicked off of the base.

Again, I wouldn't test it.

imported post

That seems like a setup; 18USC930 specifies that anything other than a folding pocketknife with a blade less than 2.5 inches is illegal, yet here they say 4 inches. I wouldn't bring anything bigger than what Federal law says is legal; often, base regulations are written without investigating the actual LAW.

imported post

johnfenter wrote:

That seems like a setup; 18USC930 specifies that anything other than a folding pocketknife with a blade less than 2.5 inches is illegal, yet here they say 4 inches. I wouldn't bring anything bigger than what Federal law says is legal; often, base regulations are written without investigating the actual LAW.

Click to expand...

18 USC 930 applies only to federal facilities, which that statute defines as buildings. As long as you stay outdoors that law has no effect.

imported post

swillden wrote:

18 USC 930 applies only to federal facilities, which that statute defines as buildings. As long as you stay outdoors that law has no effect.

Click to expand...

I attended the show on Saturday. Left the gun behind. I may not like the law about guns on military bases, but I'm not ready to challenge it myself.

Just to report on what was there (again, not that I agree with it), they had metal detectors set up prior to getting onto the tarmac where the planes were parked. ALL knives (including tiny key ring type pen knives) were prohibited. Fortunately, my wife warned me about my Gerber as we parked so I left it in the car.

The airshow was great; the flying by the Thunderbirds fantastic; and the opportunity to see and even touch and climb onto/into various military aircraft a real treat. I remain a little disappointed in the CAF caving to political correctness and changing their name from "Confederate Air Force" to "Commemorative Air Force." But the historic planes are still great to see.

Back on topic, whatever the details of the law may be, Hill AFB was NOT allowing any kind of weapon (including mace/pepper spray) or even tiny utility knife into the air show.

Anyone who has issues with that may want to either avoid future airshows, or start the dialogue/fight now with the base CO. My limited experience with military security and even police is that they are polite and professional, but have ZERO interest in arguing or debating. They have been given orders and they will follow them, Period. I'd suggest not wasting your time or risking your freedom, fortune, or even safety on that one. There are MUCH better ways to wage that fight, and probably even better fights to be waging on RKBA long before we expend too much energy on rules for military bases.

Charles

imported post

swillden wrote:

I believe that it is legal to carry concealed as long as you don't go into any buildings (don't walk through the hangar!). What I mean is that I can't find any law that would restrict CC on base. USC 18 section 930 restricts firearms of any sort in federal buildings.

But I could be missing something in the law, and I think you're wiser not to try it.

Click to expand...

Does it really?

18 USC, Ch. 44, section 930 has an exception for hunting or other lawful purpose.

IMHO personal protection is a lawful purpose.

Here is what the Act actually says in section 101:



[align=center]The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618[/align]


An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the "Gun Control Act of 1968".



[align=center]Title I -- State[/align]
[align=center]Firearms Control[/align]
[align=center]Assistance[/align]


[align=center]Purpose[/align]


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.



IMHO personal protection meets the congressional intent of a lawful purpose.

You are sharp Swillden, what is your opinion about personal protection?

imported post

Thundar wrote:

swillden wrote:

I believe that it is legal to carry concealed as long as you don't go into any buildings (don't walk through the hangar!). What I mean is that I can't find any law that would restrict CC on base. USC 18 section 930 restricts firearms of any sort in federal buildings.

But I could be missing something in the law, and I think you're wiser not to try it.

Click to expand...

Does it really?

18 USC, Ch. 44, section 930 has an exception for hunting or other lawful purpose.

IMHO personal protection is a lawful purpose.

Click to expand...

I agree, the BATFE doesn't, and it's anybody's guess as to what the US attorney who decides whether or not to prosecute, the judge who tries the case, and the jury you draw will think.

I may or may not bother to take my gun out of my deep concealment holster and leave it in the car when i walk into the post office, but I'm not anxious to OC there to find out whether or not it's legal. I understand the rationale behind the courts' unwillingness to entertain hypotheticals (there's even a latin term for it, which I don't remember), but in some cases it means bad laws stay on the books because it's better to obey them than to risk becoming a criminal to test them.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Thundar wrote:

swillden wrote:

I believe that it is legal to carry concealed as long as you don't go into any buildings (don't walk through the hangar!). What I mean is that I can't find any law that would restrict CC on base. USC 18 section 930 restricts firearms of any sort in federal buildings.

But I could be missing something in the law, and I think you're wiser not to try it.

Click to expand...

Does it really?

18 USC, Ch. 44, section 930 has an exception for hunting or other lawful purpose.

IMHO personal protection is a lawful purpose.

Click to expand...

I agree, the BATFE doesn't, and it's anybody's guess as to what the US attorney who decides whether or not to prosecute, the judge who tries the case, and the jury you draw will think.

I may or may not bother to take my gun out of my deep concealment holster and leave it in the car when i walk into the post office, but I'm not anxious to OC there to find out whether or not it's legal. I understand the rationale behind the courts' unwillingness to entertain hypotheticals (there's even a latin term for it, which I don't remember), but in some cases it means bad laws stay on the books because it's better to obey them than to risk becoming a criminal to test them.

Click to expand...

Swillden,

I agree.

It is sad when we must fear government action for conduct that is clearly permissable in aplain reading of the law. It does not feel very free.

Do you have any documentation for the statement that BATFE does not agree? I'm just lookingfor a starting point for a FOIA request.

Thanks,

Thundar