Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Can we carry in Federal Buildings??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    With the National Parks carrying laws changing, one issue we face in the national parks is Title 18, United States Code, Section 930" Prohibition on firearms in federal facilities. I took a look at the federal statue and noticed something interesting. What do you all think?


    § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities How Current is This? (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.
    Subsection (d) is exemptions to the prohibition of carrying in federal facilities.
    It specifically lists hunting as an exemption to section 930, but also mentions "or other lawful purposes".....

    There for if we are carrying (either LOC or UOC) and it is lawful, would that not in and of itself be an exception to section 930 because we are carrying for "lawful purposes"? If I am carrying a firearm and is is not unlawful to do so, that means I am lawfully carrying a firearm.

    If we break down subsection (d), (3) :

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

    It would seem as long as we are not being unlawful while carrying, we could carry in federal facilities because we are lawfully carrying a firearm (or other dangerous weapon) incident to a lawful purpose.


    Let discuss, :celebrate

  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Not much to discuss. Maybe? No test cases yet and no civil case to get a declaratory ruling either. Avoid them until it's clear. As for NPs there are many structures which we would not consider as "buildings" which the NPS will enforce as Fed. Buildings. Read the threads at CGN.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bay Area, , USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I would probably say no. I've seen off duty cops get denied into Federal buildings with their concealed firearms. It's their rules we have to play by.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    My biggest concern would be with subsection (c). The exemptions found in (d) only apply to (a), yet(c) is a seperate crime if you kill someone, and I so no exemption for justifyable homocide. So you could carry, but you're going to jail if you have to use it?

    I'll just continue to avoid federal buildings...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    Not much to discuss. Maybe? No test cases yet and no civil case to get a declaratory ruling either. Avoid them until it's clear. As for NPs there are many structures which we would not consider as "buildings" which the NPS will enforce as Fed. Buildings. Read the threads at CGN.
    I'm not advocating we all run out and enter federal buildings armed. But in the case of a restroom for example, Lassen Volcanic National Park has listed " All restrooms" as federal facilities were firearms are prohibited.

    Or if you look at a building like a visitors center ( surely a federal facility per the definition). If I was to enter that visitor center carrying lawfully, and incident to a lawful p[purpose (in this case to enjoy the displays about the park history with my family) it surely seems I would be exempt.

    If I am lawfully carry a firearm and enter a Federal building incident to a lawful purpose (in this case, using the restroom facilities, or enjoying the displays in the visitor center with my family) it would seem I would be exempt from prosecution per Subsection (d).

    Incident to a lawful purpose, would mean any purpose that is not unlawful, correct?


    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    My biggest concern would be with subsection (c). The exemptions found in (d) only apply to (a), yet (c) is a seperate crime if you kill someone, and I so no exemption for justifyable homocide. So you could carry, but you're going to jail if you have to use it?

    I'll just continue to avoid federal buildings...
    If we were carrying per subsection (d) we are exempt from section (a), it seems (c) would only add the enhancement if the shooting was not justified, IE. a crime was committed.

    Subsection (b) only deals with the fact that a crime has occurred, or at least the intent of committing a crime has occurred. If you were justified in shooting someone in self defense you would not have committed a crime.




Posting Permissions

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