Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Open Carried into Federal Building

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Ok so i'm going to pst this before my chicken is ready in the oven. My friend and I were downtown seattle today and she needed to get some papers for a new passport. We entered the building on 1st ave near Spring street and proceeded to the metal detectors. I asked the guard if there was a place to check my firearm which I was carrying openly. He pause and ask me, "for LE?" I said no, then he said no then, guns are not allowed in the federal building.

    No problem, I told my friend i'd wait for her outside. I was leaning in front of a cement post surfing the web on my phone for about 7 mins when I notice a federally contracted guard walk past behind me down to the other side of the building then come back past me again, then turned around and approached me from behind and said hello. I took my sun glasses off and did the same. He asked me if I had credintials to carry my gun unconcealed like that or was I just a "Washington Open Carrier" I told him the latter and he said ok and that he was just making sure nobody was being alarmed.

    Hewas being really nice and a little cautious, so I told him my story of metrying to get a lock box in the bluiding and that I was told that they didn't have one. I then told him, since he still looked nervous, that I wasn;t sure of the rules regarding guns and a federal buildings so if he felt better about me waiting across the street then I would go there, he said sure but not the building directly across the street since that was a federal building too. I left and thanked him for his concern

    heres the question,

    -Did I break any laws even entering that building with my gun? There were no signs in front,only posted at the metal detectors

    -Was it illegal to be hanging out in front of the building?

    -Could it have been a worse suitation if the gaurd wasn't so nice?

    Sorry, cant spell check this post, my chicken is done.......

  2. #2
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    I believe only courthouses are required to have lockboxes, and I believe that's only at a state level. Federal buildings are definitely off limits for carry. If they wanted to be real jerks about it, I believe you could have been arrested and charged right there. Good thing there was decent behavior all around and you were simply able to wait outside. Technically since it is still federal property, you could have been asked to leave the property completely, but obviously they didn't care enough to do so.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Title 18 USC, Section 930 (found in part 1, chapter 44)

    (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.
    (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.

    [/quote]

    Now here's a dangerous line to play with. You can't be "charged" if there isn't a sign posted in the public area. Now just because you didn't see one doesn't mean it's not there. Further, just because you can't be "charged" doesn't mean you wont be arrested, and have to spend time and money fighting it until it's eventually dismissed...and that's IF there is no sign. Not seeing the sign isn't a defense.

    Oh, and the federal government doesn't recognize simply carrying as an "other lawful purpose," when it comes to section 930.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    I believe only courthouses are required to have lockboxes, and I believe that's only at a state level. Federal buildings are definitely off limits for carry. If they wanted to be real jerks about it, I believe you could have been arrested and charged right there. Good thing there was decent behavior all around and you were simply able to wait outside. Technically since it is still federal property, you could have been asked to leave the property completely, but obviously they didn't care enough to do so.
    Only if they had it posted, or if they could prove that he already knew the law.




    §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 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, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (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 or other dangerous weapon 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 21/2 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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    Title 18 USC, Section 930 (found in part 1, chapter 44)

    (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.
    (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.

    Now here's a dangerous line to play with. You can't be "charged" if there isn't a sign posted in the public area. Now just because you didn't see one doesn't mean it's not there. Further, just because you can't be "charged" doesn't mean you wont be arrested, and have to spend time and money fighting it until it's eventually dismissed...and that's IF there is no sign. Not seeing the sign isn't a defense.

    Oh, and the federal government doesn't recognize simply carrying as an "other lawful purpose," when it comes to section 930.[/quote]


    Not seeing the sign is definitely a defense if the sign is posted on the inside wall next to the entrance where you would have to turn around upon entering. The U.S. Code says "POSTED CONSPICUOUSLY at each public entrance".

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    No, I think I was ok. I did not knowingly think is was illegal tobring a firearm in to the lobby. Thesign was postedon the metal detector machine and at the tray tablenot the outside of thebuilding, the lobby essentially was a public area untilI crossed a certain point which I didn't. Its like at the airport.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    PolskiG wrote:
    No, I think I was ok. I did not knowingly think is was illegal tobring a firearm in to the lobby. Thesign was postedon the metal detector machine and at the tray tablenot the outside of thebuilding, the lobby essentially was a public area untilI crossed a certain point which I didn't. Its like at the airport.
    You did not pass any posted signs with your gun, therefore, you did nothing that you could be convicted for. Notice the law says CONVICTED. It says nothing about detained, arrested or charge, you just could not be CONVICTED.

    I think you were just fine, though. The signs at the metal detector are obviously where the government considers to be the prohibition line.
    That's pretty much how all laws work. If you can't be convicted of a crime, that means you haven't committed one, and therefore you cannot be detained or arrested.

    Generally speaking.

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

    Post imported post

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

    Under 39 CFR §232.1(l) the only exemption is "except for official purposes". What constitutes "official purposes"? Would 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? Is the exemption recognized in 18 USC §930(d)(3) rendered inoperable under any other provisions of federal code?

    Until someone in the Federal Gov't answers the question: Is self-defense considered "other lawful purpose" under 18 USC §930(d)(3) you are gonna have to wait off the property with your weapon.





  9. #9
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    PolskiG wrote:
    No, I think I was ok. I did not knowingly think is was illegal tobring a firearm in to the lobby. Thesign was postedon the metal detector machine and at the tray tablenot the outside of thebuilding, the lobby essentially was a public area untilI crossed a certain point which I didn't. Its like at the airport.
    You did not pass any posted signs with your gun, therefore, you did nothing that you could be convicted for. Notice the law says CONVICTED. It says nothing about detained, arrested or charge, you just could not be CONVICTED.

    I think you were just fine, though. The signs at the metal detector are obviously where the government considers to be the prohibition line.
    That's pretty much how all laws work. If you can't be convicted of a crime, that means you haven't committed one, and therefore you cannot be detained or arrested.

    Generally speaking.
    Unfortunately that isn't the way it usually works. Here in CA I know of one personarrested for possessionof "Unregistered Assault Weapon" when they weren't even"Assault Weapons" per the definition in the Penal Codes. He spent weeks in jail, payed out $5,000.00 (IIRC)out of pocket to a bailbondsman (non-refundable) to get out on$50,000.00 bail, spent another $25,000.00ish on lawyers, and then finally cut a deal to have them keep the "non"-Assault Weapons so they wouldn't continue to bankrupt him. All the while they fully intended to drop whatever case they didn't really have against him, but were fully prepared to push as far as they could go to hurt an honestgun owner and get moreguns off the street.

    They can arrest you for anything. They can hold you, they can even go so far as charging you and setting a trial date. They can even go so far as to prosecute. Depends on how muchpain they want to inflict to get a message sent.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Dr. Fresh wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    PolskiG wrote:
    No, I think I was ok. I did not knowingly think is was illegal tobring a firearm in to the lobby. Thesign was postedon the metal detector machine and at the tray tablenot the outside of thebuilding, the lobby essentially was a public area untilI crossed a certain point which I didn't. Its like at the airport.
    You did not pass any posted signs with your gun, therefore, you did nothing that you could be convicted for. Notice the law says CONVICTED. It says nothing about detained, arrested or charge, you just could not be CONVICTED.

    I think you were just fine, though. The signs at the metal detector are obviously where the government considers to be the prohibition line.
    That's pretty much how all laws work. If you can't be convicted of a crime, that means you haven't committed one, and therefore you cannot be detained or arrested.

    Generally speaking.
    Unfortunately that isn't the way it usually works. Here in CA I know of one personarrested for possessionof "Unregistered Assault Weapon" when they weren't even"Assault Weapons" per the definition in the Penal Codes. He spent weeks in jail, payed out $5,000.00 (IIRC)out of pocket to a bailbondsman (non-refundable) to get out on$50,000.00 bail, spent another $25,000.00ish on lawyers, and then finally cut a deal to have them keep the "non"-Assault Weapons so they wouldn't continue to bankrupt him. All the while they fully intended to drop whatever case they didn't really have against him, but were fully prepared to push as far as they could go to hurt an honestgun owner and get moreguns off the street.

    They can arrest you for anything. They can hold you, they can even go so far as charging you and setting a trial date. They can even go so far as to prosecute. Depends on how muchpain they want to inflict to get a message sent.
    Agreed, never take a gun into any federal building. They could have arrested you on the spot. The Feds can and may F with you.

  11. #11
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Until someone in the Federal Gov't answers the question: Is self-defense considered "other lawful purpose" under 18 USC §930(d)(3) you are gonna have to wait off the property with your weapon.
    All those in favor of having PolskiG be the test case that forces the government to define the meaning say, "aye"!


    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    T-RaV wrote:
    All those in favor of having PolskiG be the test case that forces the government to define the meaning say, "aye"!

    nah, i'm good. Been getting lucky lately don't want to push it, plus I wouldnt get to go to the OC events coming up if i'm in prison

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    After the National Parks amendment was slipped into the credit card bill, and with the Court's holding in Heller that 2A protects an individual right (I know, it didn't say outside the home, but. . .), I have to wonder if there is enough momentum to change federal law in regard to fed property other than national parks. We'll probably never be able to carry into a federal courthouse, but we might get a requirement that they provide lockboxes like Washington courthouses. Perhaps lockboxes at all federal buildings that choose to prohibit carry.

    Unfortunately, Washington's two senators would never support much less sponsor any such legislation. A pro-gun sponsor would have to be found, or another amendment would have to be slipped into a bill that the Dems really want to pass.

    Charles

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Wow every time I read articles like this I always wonder why states love citizens more than the feds.

  15. #15
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    §*930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    shall not apply to—
    the lawful carrying of firearms a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    So you can go hunting in a Federal building?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    Might be similar to this


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    I would have to make the argument, based on the wording "or other lawful purposes", that you can carry into a federal building, as the carrying of firearms is a lawful act. To say otherwise, by any member here, is to cast doubt on everything that everyone here believes in and fights for.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    TRAKATAK wrote:
    * I would have to make the argument, based on the wording "or other lawful purposes", that you can carry into a federal building, as the carrying of firearms is a lawful act.* To say otherwise, by any member here, is to cast doubt on everything that everyone here believes in and fights for.
    *
    I would highly advise against going into a federal building under that line of thought.

    There is a VERY distinct difference between state law (open carry) and federal law (prohibiting firearms in federal buildings). State law will never trump federal on federal property.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Unfortunately that isn't the way it usually works. Here in CA I know of one personarrested for possessionof "Unregistered Assault Weapon" when they weren't even"Assault Weapons" per the definition in the Penal Codes. He spent weeks in jail, payed out $5,000.00 (IIRC)out of pocket to a bailbondsman (non-refundable) to get out on$50,000.00 bail, spent another $25,000.00ish on lawyers, and then finally cut a deal to have them keep the "non"-Assault Weapons so they wouldn't continue to bankrupt him. All the while they fully intended to drop whatever case they didn't really have against him, but were fully prepared to push as far as they could go to hurt an honestgun owner and get moreguns off the street.

    They can arrest you for anything. They can hold you, they can even go so far as charging you and setting a trial date. They can even go so far as to prosecute. Depends on how muchpain they want to inflict to get a message sent.
    There was a man in New Hampshire who was arrested for attending the trial of a friend of his.

    He was held in jail without being presented charges or having an arraignment (much less a trial) scheduled.

    When he motioned for an arraignment, the judge decided that, "distasteful as it may be," he would be held indefinitely without arraignment.

    For months, he was held in jail without food, and with only intermittent access to his attorney. Usually, they'd schedule a time, then the jail would change that time without telling either him or the attorney.

    When friends showed up to visit, they constantly told them that they missed his visiting hours (which were mysteriously different every time you asked). They then made it a point to continually tell him that nobody wanted to see him, trying to put him in a state of depression.

    When 9 people filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf, they were all dismissed.

    When he filed one and appealed it to the state supreme court, the supreme court backed the superior court on the indefinite detainment.

    What was he finally charged with? Resisting arrest and refusing to process.

    How can you charge someone for resisting arrest without charging them with the crime they were being arrested for? Or is it just illegal to resist arrest, even if you're not charged with a crime?

    Are any of us subject to arrest at the whim of an officer, without any law to back him?

    No wonder the Mexicans (and everyone else with half a brain) are leaving en masse.

    America. Land of the free.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Unfortunately that isn't the way it usually works. Here in CA I know of one personarrested for possessionof "Unregistered Assault Weapon" when they weren't even"Assault Weapons" per the definition in the Penal Codes. He spent weeks in jail, payed out $5,000.00 (IIRC)out of pocket to a bailbondsman (non-refundable) to get out on$50,000.00 bail, spent another $25,000.00ish on lawyers, and then finally cut a deal to have them keep the "non"-Assault Weapons so they wouldn't continue to bankrupt him. All the while they fully intended to drop whatever case they didn't really have against him, but were fully prepared to push as far as they could go to hurt an honestgun owner and get moreguns off the street.

    They can arrest you for anything. They can hold you, they can even go so far as charging you and setting a trial date. They can even go so far as to prosecute. Depends on how muchpain they want to inflict to get a message sent.
    There was a man in New Hampshire who was arrested for attending the trial of a friend of his.

    He was held in jail without being presented charges or having an arraignment (much less a trial) scheduled.

    When he motioned for an arraignment, the judge decided that, "distasteful as it may be," he would be held indefinitely without arraignment.

    For months, he was held in jail without food, and with only intermittent access to his attorney. Usually, they'd schedule a time, then the jail would change that time without telling either him or the attorney.

    When friends showed up to visit, they constantly told them that they missed his visiting hours (which were mysteriously different every time you asked). They then made it a point to continually tell him that nobody wanted to see him, trying to put him in a state of depression.

    When 9 people filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf, they were all dismissed.

    When he filed one and appealed it to the state supreme court, the supreme court backed the superior court on the indefinite detainment.

    What was he finally charged with? Resisting arrest and refusing to process.

    How can you charge someone for resisting arrest without charging them with the crime they were being arrested for? Or is it just illegal to resist arrest, even if you're not charged with a crime?

    Are any of us subject to arrest at the whim of an officer, without any law to back him?

    No wonder the Mexicans (and everyone else with half a brain) are leaving en masse.

    America. Land of the free.

    Yeah, way to go New Hampshire, really can't call it a "Free State"

    XD


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    PolskiG wrote:
    He asked me if I had credintials to carry my gun unconcealed like that or was I just a "Washington Open Carrier"
    I really like this part. Washington OC is on the radar screen and starting to be seen as an acceptable thing.

Posting Permissions

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