Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: So according to this law...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Am I reading this correctly?

    http://www.osec.doc.gov/osy/NPCSecur...section930.htm

    subsection D part 3 is what seems to allow firearms in post offices and ranger stations and visitor center and such correct? As long as it is not going to be used for illegal purposes, which self defense is not.

  2. #2
    Regular Member CRF250rider1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Herndon, VA & Martinsville, VA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
      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).
    hmm. Interesting

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    Who wants to be the test case? :what:

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    If some of our legal professionals, and my fellow forum members agree, and afterI consult my own attorney that this is in fact the case, andI would not be in violation of the law, I would be highly motivated to be the test case, although with my past infraction of the law, might seem to make me, not the best test case, though I would probably be willing.

    Greater men than I have risked far more for freedom,I surely would not mind doing my part for my fellow citizens. I have been arrested and done time before, so those things are not as frightful to me as it may be to others,I'm not bragging by no means, I'm just saying....

    Thoughts...

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    livitup wrote:
    Who wants to be the test case? :what:
    Hank!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    171

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    ..

    Thoughts...
    My thought is that I wish I were half as brave as you.

    This particular ban is a personal thorn in my side. If I didn't have to provide for my family I'd be much more willing to take risks to expose the farce that is our government disarming its citizens when they get too close.

    If there is anything I can do to provide logistical support, please let me know.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran gotm4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    The problem with federal laws is that there is many times another federal law which is the exact opposite.
    armorer & notary public for VA Arms Co FFL/SOT
    https://www.facebook.com/virginiaarmscompany

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    I guess the thing to do is go to a visitor center at a national park or something, and ask to see which code they are using to prohibit firearms.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    I guess the thing to do is go to a visitor center at a national park or something, and ask to see which code they are using to prohibit firearms.
    You've got the right law, and in spite of what it appears to say, the NPS seems to be taking the stand that you are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense into one of their Federal facilities.

    I suggest you read through the last two pages of the National Park Carry thread, starting here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/38387-2.html

    It might be less risky to start by asking what authorizes them to claim that carrying a holstered firearm for self defense is illegal...

    TFred


  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    I guess the thing to do is go to a visitor center at a national park or something, and ask to see which code they are using to prohibit firearms.
    From this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021805124.html

    In the Washington area, gun owners will be able to carry a firearm into the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, but not beyond the ticketed entrances to the Filene Center, the park's amphitheater.

    "Whether you sit on the lawn or under the canopy, firearms are prohibited," said Park Service regional spokesman Bill Line. Private restaurants on the grounds will also ban weapons, Line said.


    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    I guess the thing to do is go to a visitor center at a national park or something, and ask to see which code they are using to prohibit firearms.
    You've got the right law, and in spite of what it appears to say, the NPS seems to be taking the stand that you are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense into one of their Federal facilities.

    I suggest you read through the last two pages of the National Park Carry thread, starting here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/38387-2.html

    It might be less risky to start by asking what authorizes them to claim that carrying a holstered firearm for self defense is illegal...

    TFred
    After reading the last two pages of that thread, it seems clear to me that any Lawful reason is permitted, such as excercising my constitutional right to bear arms, completely legal . These signs on the station and post offices and such are like the NO ILLEGAL WEAPONS signs at some places, if it is used for a crime than the weapon becomes a crime in and of itself, but with out criminal intent or use than the weapon is lawful. Clear as mud.

    IANAL

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    Where is user when we need him : )

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Moderator. Please move to "News" section. More eyes on the target
    Everyone start saving their pennies for a Legal Defense Fund

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post


    From this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021805124.html

    In the Washington area, gun owners will be able to carry a firearm into the Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, but not beyond the ticketed entrances to the Filene Center, the park's amphitheater.

    "Whether you sit on the lawn or under the canopy, firearms are prohibited," said Park Service regional spokesman Bill Line. Private restaurants on the grounds will also ban weapons, Line said.
    #1 - I'd be very interested in finding out on what basis Mr. Line believes NPS can ban firearms beyond the ticketed entrances.

    #2 - I'm sure Mr. Line and his minions will have had conversations with the consessionaires (folks who bid to rent and operate restaurants,souvenirstands, etc.within NPS boundaries) about the viability of their leases should they not "decide" to post them.

    This is going to take time and effort to get straightened out - not just at Wolf Trap but across the NPS system.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Charlottesville / Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    livitup wrote:
    Who wants to be the test case? :what:
    Hank!
    +1 :celebrate

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620

    Post imported post

    SuperDad wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    livitup wrote:
    Who wants to be the test case? :what:
    Hank!
    +1 :celebrate
    NPS might change their policy/interpertation just to stop him from asking questions and go back to Joisey. Doubt that NPS has enough duct tape.

    We could do worse.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    livitup wrote:
    Who wants to be the test case? :what:
    Hank!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post


  19. #19
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    ufcfanvt wrote: The second link is about post offices, which fly under a whole different set of rules.

    The first link just briefly mentions the paragraph (d.3) exception which allows for "other lawful purposes", and then says there is no case law to determine what "other lawful purposes" really means.

    IMHO, in order for the NPS ban in Federal facilities to hold up, there must be some assertion or authority that carrying a properly holstered firearm for the purpose of self-defense is an illegal act. At this point, I don't know how they could do that.

    TFred


  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't risk it, myself.

    Off the top of my head, I don't think it qualifies as a "building", but I suspect the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia might disagree with me. And there's no telling which way a jury would go on that. I'd say it's not a "building" within the meaning of the statute, because it's not enclosed, it's reallyjust a canopy, like a car-port or picnic shelter. The statute clearly envisions buildings in which workers regularly perform work, like the State Department or Department of Transportation. Seems to me the park service even bills the thing as an outdoor experience, "under the stars", etc.

    It would be really handy to find the architectural design firm that built it and have a look at the contract and drawings to see how it was characterized at the time of construction. The RFP and contract are public information at this point. An FOIA request might be in order.

    But the fact is that it's a building of some sort, the statute doesn't qualify "building" in terms of regular buildings v. gazebos & picnic shelters.

    Might be good for a declaratory judgment action, but I wouldn't risk a criminal charge.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , Maryland, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Wolftrap Filene Center -
    Architects/Engineers:
    Dewberry & Davis, John MacFadyen, Joseph Boggs

    Builder:
    G&C Construction Corporation

  22. #22
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Secion 101, the general purpose section of the 1968 GCA talks about lawful and personal protection.

    There is a seperate law for the post office.
    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

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    I haven't been able to find the Post office statute. Can anyone cite?

  24. #24
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Secion 101, the general purpose section of the 1968 GCA talks about lawful and personal protection.

    There is a seperate law for the post office.
    Yes, interesting. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly says that carrying a firearm for personal protection is a lawful activity. Very handy to know.

    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.
    TFred

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Secion 101, the general purpose section of the 1968 GCA talks about lawful and personal protection.

    There is a seperate law for the post office.
    Yes, interesting. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly says that carrying a firearm for personal protection is a lawful activity. Very handy to know.

    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.
    TFred
    Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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