• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are guns REALLY illegal on the DC Mall?

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

The DC Mall complex is a Federal Park. According to the National Park Service website:
Officially established in 1965, National Malland Memorial Parks actually protectssome of the older parkland in the National Park System.Areas withinthis premier parkprovide visitors with ample opportunities to commemorate presidential legacies; honor the courage and sacrifice of war veterans; and celebrate the United States commitment to freedom and equality.

So if the Mall, particularly the Park around the Washington Monument where the 2A march was held earlier in April, are Federal Parkland, then under the wording of the new law regarding carry on Federal Parkland, carry SHOULD be legal there:
Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI

Part 2 - Resource Protection, Public Use, and Recreation

2.4 Weapons traps and nets. (new paragraph (h))

(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law."
Let me explain. The new law states that carry in a Federal Park is legal as long as the person carrying is legally permitted to carry in that STATE.

DC is NOT a state.
It is a City. It is, in fact, a Federal District. Therefore, since DC is not a state, and is not part of a state, it has NO state law. Since there are no state laws that regulate DC, there can be, by extension, no state laws that regulate firearms in DC.

Under our system of law in the USA, any action not specifically prohibited by law, code, or statute is LEGAL.

Without State Laws that prohibit carry in DC, Carry on Federal Parkland located in DC should be, under the letter of the Federal Law, legal.

Let me reiterate that for the hard of thinking.

The new Federal law allowing carry in Federal Parklands defers to State Laws.

DC is NOT a State, and therefore NO STATE LAWS exist in DC.

The Federal law makes no mention of local, municipal, County, or City laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations. It ONLY mentions STATE laws.

One more time, for the "hard-of-thinking"...

DC is NOT a state. Without the existence of the legal entity of a State, there can be no "State laws".

And as we all know, under the US system of law, in the absence of a prohibitive law, an activity is, de facto, LEGAL.

So who wants to be the "test case"?... ;)
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Under the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), you may transport a firearm from your residence to ANY other location where it is legal to possess, if it is properly unloaded and secured in your vehicle. Under FOPA, I can take my firearms to PA or WV, and still travel through MD or DC, as long as I don't stop in those gun-grabbing locales, and as long as my firearm is properly secured and unloaded...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

So you could unload your gun, put it in the trunk in a locked box. drive to the Washington Monument Park parking lot, then put your gun on. Technically. Under the "letter of the law".

Because, you see, there are no STATE laws in DC to prohibit doing that in a Federal Park, because DC ISN'T a STATE, and therefore doesn't HAVE any state laws...

But I imagine such activity would NOT be met with glee or acceptance by US Park Police, DC Metro, or any of the other dozen LEA's who participate in the convoluted web of jurisdictional authority in Washington DC.

I'm just saying, that the way the Fed.Park law is written, in conjunction with FOPA, it COULD be done legally, but you'd have a hell of a time convincing the local LEO's, and the DC Courts that your actions were legal, REGARDLESS of the facts of the wording of the laws.

DC LEA's and courts have never let the TRUTH or the Law get in the way of an illegal arrest and imprisonment if it might make a good headline in the Washington Post and the Brady Campaign's newsletter.

We need to realize that large parts of the governments of DC and MD are organized criminal enterprises. Someone needs to file suits under the RICO statutes and get these insane, racketeering criminals out of the "halls of government" of those two locations and into the "gray-bar hotel" where they belong...


But then again IANAL...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

So, is there parking at the Mall? Or, do you have to park in the city where guns are all but illegal, and then carry it to the Mall?

If so, then, when you stop and park, that is not a legal place to carry, so the federal transportation law would not apply. Then, there is the problem of getting the gun from where you parked to the Mall without breaking a law.

Maybe you could have a designated driver, who is unarmed, drive several OCer's right up to the mall, they jump out and load, and the DD parks the car, joining them unarmed at the Mall.
 

25sierraman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
144
Location
Alexandria , Virginia, USA
imported post

popcorn.gif
I'm interested to see how this turns out.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Maybe DC falls under the same jurisdictional category as a territory, such as Porto Rico, Guam, Samoa. Territories may not be states but they do have their own governments and laws.
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Metro has already ruled on this...

It is perfectly legal to ride the Metro OC or CC (if you have a VA CHP). But the second you cross into DC on the Metro, you are in the jurisdiction of the City of Washington DC, and DC laws apply. The Metro is administered as part of the DC government, and is NOT part of the NPS, so that would not work...

Like I said, IANAL, and I think that regardless of the LETTER of the law, I think the legal system in DC would try to find SOME way to disallow this, even though they aren't a State.

Territories are a whole different story. Territories have their own governments, and although they are not "states", they nave a certain level of autonomy with regards to legal jurisdiction.

DC's local government, although they seem to believe they are autonomous, are actually subject to Federal oversight. Regardless of what Mr. Fenty and Ms. Holmes-Norton might believe, DC is NOT a STATE. And since the FedPark gun law only stipulates that you must abide by the law of the STATE in which a Federal Park lies (and makes NO mention of "districts", cities, or municipalities) the LETTER of the law does not allow for restrictions made on carry imposed by local governments.

But then again, as we've seen in Martinsburg WV, and in Maryland, the practice of local governments passing and enforcing laws that are flatly illlegal is something that often stands--even when tried in court--because the Courts are often in collusion with these criminal governments against the People.

But IANAL, and I'm too broke to volunteer to be a "test case". I'm just pointing out the exact wording of the law.
 

Ruger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
545
Location
Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
And as we all know, under the US system of law, in the absence of a prohibitive law, an activity is, de facto, LEGAL.

So who wants to be the "test case"?... ;)

PM kwikrnu - he might make the drive from TN to be the test case. He seemingly has the cajones for such legal challenges.

He will suethe DC Metro PD after they unlawfully arrest him.
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

Ruger wrote:
Dreamer wrote:
And as we all know, under the US system of law, in the absence of a prohibitive law, an activity is, de facto, LEGAL.

So who wants to be the "test case"?... ;)

PM kwikrnu - he might make the drive from TN to be the test case. He seemingly has the cajones for such legal challenges.

He will suethe DC Metro PD after they unlawfully arrest him.
+1
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
Maybe DC falls under the same jurisdictional category as a territory, such as Porto Rico, Guam, Samoa. Territories may not be states but they do have their own governments and laws.


Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS

§1.4What terms do I need to know?

State means a State, territory, or possession of the United States.

State law means the applicable and nonconflicting laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, infractions and codes of the State(s) and political subdivision(s) within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

ak56 wrote:
Task Force 16 wrote:
Maybe DC falls under the same jurisdictional category as a territory, such as Porto Rico, Guam, Samoa. Territories may not be states but they do have their own governments and laws.


Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS

§1.4What terms do I need to know?

State means a State, territory, or possession of the United States.

State law means the applicable and nonconflicting laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, infractions and codes of the State(s) and political subdivision(s) within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located.
So, with DCs carry ban (except for the political elite) guns in Ntaional Parks within the DC area is a no go.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

ak56 wrote
Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property

Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI

PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS

§1.4What terms do I need to know?

State means a State, territory, or possession of the United States.

State law means the applicable and nonconflicting laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, infractions and codes of the State(s) and political subdivision(s) within whose exterior boundaries a park area or a portion thereof is located.

Interesting try...

BUT:
DC is NOT a State.
DC is not a Territory.
DC is not a "Possession of the US".
DC is not a Political subdivision" of a larger body.

Washington is a Federal District. That's what the "D" in "Washington D.C." stands for.

Words have meaning folks. The Law works the way it does because words have meaning,and lawyers know how to use those meanings--in all their subtle contexts--to achieve their ends.

If the Federal Code means to cover a specific issue in the District of Columbia, it needs to specifiy that it is specifically addressing the District of Columbia, because in the legal hierarchy of political subdivisions here in the US, Washington DC is a unique entity, and holds a unique status as to exactly what sort of political entity it is.

And it is NOT a State, Territory, Possession, or Political Subdivision of a larger unit.

DC is a politically autonomous city--the only one of it's kind in the entire USA.

Look it up...
 

centsi

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
imported post

"Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law."

The problem is "except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law". DC will argue that congress gave them the authority to legislate in areas of DC through "applicable federal law", hence their prohibition on firearms is a valid extension of that federal law.

See the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 (http://www.abfa.com/ogc/hract.htm)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

DC local laws, although authorized by federal law, are not federal law. That logic could be used to call all legislation passed by Congress and being part of the Constitution since its passage was authorized by the Constitution.

Nice argument, but I think it fails in court.
 
Top