Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Question about who can be armed in a Federal Court

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    By U.S. Law, who may be armed while inside the chambers of a Federal Supreme Court?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    The U.S. Marshals and whoever else has a badge that is serving official purposes at the court.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    By U.S. Law, who may be armed while inside the chambers of a Federal Supreme Court?
    Well, first, before we can cite some law, we must know just what jurisdiction you mean. There is only one "Federal Supreme Court" but it is known more usually as The Supreme Court of the United States or SCOTUS.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Greenwater, Washington, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Bader wrote:
    By U.S. Law, who may be armed while inside the chambers of a Federal Supreme Court?
    Well, first, before we can cite some law, we must know just what jurisdiction you mean. There is only one "Federal Supreme Court" but it is known more usually as The Supreme Court of the United States or SCOTUS.
    That's what I meant. Is there any way a citizen would be justified in carrying in there?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Bader wrote:
    By U.S. Law, who may be armed while inside the chambers of a Federal Supreme Court?
    Well, first, before we can cite some law, we must know just what jurisdiction you mean. There is only one "Federal Supreme Court" but it is known more usually as The Supreme Court of the United States or SCOTUS.
    That's what I meant. Is there any way a citizen would be justified in carrying in there?
    I remember reading the US Code

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

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    It looks like it is covered.

    I was looking for SCOTUS Rules microscopic to it.

    I have an acquaintance that was DC solicitor admitted to SCOTUS bar that has mentioned carrying in conjunction with his job but I don't and didn't recall whether he was armed in chambers or not.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    US Marshals are the Law Enforcement Agency present at the United States Supreme Court, correct?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    If that is addressed to me, I have no idea. I scanned the USMS Wiki page and didn't see anything. The word "supreme" does not occur there.

    I did notice that their senior pay grade is the same as mine was.

    I don't think that their selection is rigorous enough.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    From what I've read so far, it sounds like a combination of the U.S. Marshals and the U.S. Supreme Court Police

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The OP was "who may be armed?" Making inclusive lists seems to exclude Justices and other Officers of the Court.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    "Incident to hunting"??? Who would they be hunting? Lawyers? Isn't that illegal?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    "Incident to hunting"??? Who would they be hunting? Lawyers? Isn't that illegal?
    LOL I wondered that, too... interesting.

    Out of curiosity, are Justices of the U.S. Supreme able to be armed? Or only commissioned law enforcement?

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    "Incident to hunting"???* Who would they be hunting?* Lawyers?* Isn't that illegal?
    Somehow I don't think the Supreme Court was the "Federal facility" they had in mind when they were thinking of plausible hunting exemptions.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    I was looking for SCOTUS Rules microscopic to it.*
    Interesting phraseology. As always.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    "Incident to hunting"??? Who would they be hunting? Lawyers? Isn't that illegal?
    It's not a question of is it illegal, but rather...should it be?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    It is vastly better to live under a rule of law, that you may not like, than under the rule of men, tyrants that you don't like.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    I suppose the OP could also go to the US Supreme Court while OCing and see find out first hand which Federal Agent protects the building.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    I suppose the OP could also go to the US Supreme Court while OCing and see find out first hand which Federal Agent protects the building.
    I imagine that the response would not be singular.

    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.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Bader wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Bader wrote:
    By U.S. Law, who may be armed while inside the chambers of a Federal Supreme Court?
    Well, first, before we can cite some law, we must know just what jurisdiction you mean. There is only one "Federal Supreme Court" but it is known more usually as The Supreme Court of the United States or SCOTUS.
    That's what I meant. Is there any way a citizen would be justified in carrying in there?
    How would you even get there? DC is one big GunFreeZone despite Heller.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winchester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    "Incident to hunting"??? Who would they be hunting? Lawyers? Isn't that illegal?
    It's not a question of is it illegal, but rather...should it be?
    When and who said: 'First thing we do is kill all the lawyers" (If I'm correct). Sounds like a good reason for self defense in a court room or the Federal Supreme Court.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    9MM Owner wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    "Incident to hunting"??? Who would they be hunting? Lawyers? Isn't that illegal?
    It's not a question of is it illegal, but rather...should it be?
    When and who said: 'First thing we do is kill all the lawyers" (If I'm correct). Sounds like a good reason for self defense in a court room or the Federal Supreme Court.

    "The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life.

    Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society.

    http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

    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.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/

    My favorite

    Henry VI, II, (IV, 2) Line 2379 Dick, the Butcher

    Jack Cade. Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,—
    All. God save your majesty!
    Jack Cade. I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; 2375 all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
    Dick the Butcher. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
    Jack Cade. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. How now! who's there?
    Why the promises sound just like the current economic recovery stimulus rhetoric!



  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Oops. Someone already answered.

    I deleted the content of the post.

Posting Permissions

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