Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: My letter to Wolf Trap, and their response.

  1. #1
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    A few weeks back I had sent a letter to Wolf Trap questioning the basis of their weapons ban. Maybe I worded itin correctly, maybe not. Below is my message to them along with there response. Figured it would be a good topic.



    From: Kennys

    Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 3:10 PM

    To: Wolf Trap

    Subject: Regarding the no weapons in your rules.

    I had noticed in you rules that you deny legal weapons carry and I was looking for a clarification. You said it was Federal Law and I don't know where to find that. Please pay special attention to the items in Red

    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930

    § 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.

    As per definition.

    THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968

    TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44

    TITLE I : STATE FIREARMS

    CONTROL ASSISTANCE

    PURPOSE

    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.

    This should conclude that your list of rules is currently out dated. Could you please verify this for me, and if I am incorrect please point me to the regulations that shows me you are in the right by not allowing legally carried fire arms.

    Thank you for your time



    Reply:

    Dear Mr. Kennys:

    This responds to your email inquiry to the Wolf Trap Foundation dated March 12, 2010, regarding the prohibition of firearms at the Filene Center at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts. Specifically, your questions appear to focus on whether persons lawfully carrying firearms under Virginia law may enter a posted Federal facility by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3) and/or Section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    Because the National Park Service has responsibility for visitor services at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, your inquiry was forwarded to me for response.

    As you are likely aware, a recent Federal law, now codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1a-7b and which took effect on February 22, 2010, generally allows the possession of firearms in national parks, subject to other Federal firearms laws and the firearms laws of the state and locality where the park is located. By its terms, however, § 1a-7b has no effect on a Federal statute such as 18 U.S.C. § 930, which generally prohibits firearms in a Federal facility. The term "Federal facility" is defined at § 930(g)(1) as 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." At Wolf Trap, the NPS has determined that the Filene Center, the fenced area that encompasses the ticketed entrance facility and performing arts and other visitor-related structures, is a Federal facility. Consistent with the provisions of § 930(h), NPS has "posted conspicuously at each public entrance" notices that firearms are prohibited within this facility.

    Your inquiry suggests that possession of weapons is lawful under § 930(d) which exempts from the reach of § 930(a) the lawful carrying of firearms in Federal facilities if it is "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

    As you may be aware, primary responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the U.S. Criminal Code rests with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

    Based on our discussions, DOJ does not view a provision of state law generally allowing persons to possess firearms as sufficient by itself to authorize the possession of firearms in Federal facilities under section § 930(d). Your letter also cited a reference to "personal protection" in a provision of an uncodified Congressional purpose statement from the 1968 Gun Control Act. That provision does not alter our conclusion. Finally, in response to your request, no regulations have been promulgated to implement § 930.

    Thank you for your interest in Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts.

    Sincerely,

    Duane Erwin, Chief Ranger

    Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts

    1551 Trap Road, Vienna, Virginia 22182-1643 Office # (703) 255-1822 Fax # (703) 255-4009

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Kenny,

    Recommend you FOIA the DOJ and the NPS for their communications about interpreting the 1968 GCA and TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930

    The intent of congress in section 101 of the GCA of 1968 is crystal clear. Personal protection is an activity which is lawful.

    This is a real opportunity because we know there are communications between DOJ and NPS. Make these communications public. Might give someone standing to bring suit after macDonald comes out:celebrate

    Live Free or Die,

    Thundar
    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 inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the resolution of whether or not personal protection falls under "lawful purpose" is not going to be resolved with the Wolf Trap legal team. This is a nation-wide issue, and as they state in their response, it's going to ultimately be handled in court somewhere, with the DoJ taking the wrong side.

    We don't want the current DoJ anywhere near this issue. IMHO, we'd be better off leaving it alone until we get a more Constitution-friendly administration in place.

    Also, I suspect they will deny any FOIA request as protected under attorney-client privilege. Maybe not, but I bet that is what they will claim.

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that the resolution of whether or not personal protection falls under "lawful purpose" is not going to be resolved with the Wolf Trap legal team. This is a nation-wide issue, and as they state in their response, it's going to ultimately be handled in court somewhere, with the DoJ taking the wrong side.

    We don't want the current DoJ anywhere near this issue. IMHO, we'd be better off leaving it alone until we get a more Constitution-friendly administration in place.

    Also, I suspect they will deny any FOIA request as protected under attorney-client privilege. Maybe not, but I bet that is what they will claim.

    TFred
    I believe you are correct, and fact of the matter is I am guessing any way that they have not had many if any conversations with DOJ.

    I don't understand what I am missing and maybe it's the meds I am on currently but he states

    "Finally, in response to your request, no regulations have been promulgated to implement § 930."If that is true what regulations is he following? 930 A and D are all under one heading, I don't believe they can just separate the code at will to mean what ever they want? As well I do not know much about wolf trap, but are the people that work under and in these buildings actual federal government employees?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    kennys wrote:
    Your letter also cited a reference to "personal protection" in a provision of an uncodified Congressional purpose statement from the 1968 Gun Control Act. That provision does not alter our conclusion. Finally, in response to your request, no regulations have been promulgated to implement § 930.
    Wow, that is quite a statement. Section 101 of the 1968 Gun Control Act was much more than an uncodified Congressional purpose statement. Section 101 really is part of the law.

    That the Dept. of Justice failed, neglected or intentionally left out section 101 does not make it invalid. remember codification is not the law. Codification is the process of organizing disparate laws (for the convenience of users)

    It is unfortunate that the law does not alter your conclusion. You are still wrong.

    Here is the wiki link on codification:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_(law)


    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 inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  6. #6
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    kennys wrote:
    Your letter also cited a reference to "personal protection" in a provision of an uncodified Congressional purpose statement from the 1968 Gun Control Act. That provision does not alter our conclusion. Finally, in response to your request, no regulations have been promulgated to implement § 930.
    Wow, that is quite a statement. Section 101 of the 1968 Gun Control Act was much more than an uncodified Congressional purpose statement. Section 101 really is part of the law.

    That the Dept. of Justice failed, neglected or intentionally left out section 101 does not make it invalid. remember codification is not the law. Codification is the process of organizing disparate laws (for the convenience of users)

    It is unfortunate that the law does not alter your conclusion. You are still wrong.

    Here is the wiki link on codification:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_(law)

    That wasn't my conclusion it was theirs and they are wrong. Just wanted to specify.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    I find it very interesting that the include a "fenced are" as a "federal facility" when they know darn well that is supposed to be limited to "buildings."

    They could have tried to stretch "federal facility" to mean all of Wolf Trap - that wouldn't fly either.

    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.

Posting Permissions

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