Are guns REALLY illegal on the DC Mall?

centsi · Apr 29, 2010

imported post

As you said, federal law authorizes DC law. If you read the acts of congress that give power to DC, they do so in order to reduce burden on congress to regulate DC. Congress delegated it's federal law making authority to DC, hence DC law has the power of federal law in the areas in which DC can legislate.

The US Constitution differs from congressional acts in a number of ways here. The Constitution is not a set of laws nor is it law making body.

The Constitution gives Congress the general police powers for DC, and Congress delegated most of that power to the DC Council. Laws passed by the DC Council are not federal laws but have the power of federal law and are valid within the constraints established by Congress so long as they are constitutional.

IMHO general firearms possession on the DC Mall is prohibited.

eye95 · Apr 29, 2010

imported post

centsi wrote:

As you said, federal law authorizes DC law. If you read the acts of congress that give power to DC, they do so in order to reduce burden on congress to regulate DC. Congress delegated it's federal law making authority to DC, hence DC law has the power of federal law in the areas in which DC can legislate.

The US Constitution differs from congressional acts in a number of ways here. The Constitution is not a set of laws nor is it law making body.

The Constitution gives Congress the general police powers for DC, and Congress delegated most of that power to the DC Council. Laws passed by the DC Council are not federal laws but have the power of federal law and are valid within the constraints established by Congress so long as they are constitutional.

IMHO general firearms possession on the DC Mall is prohibited.

Can you cite the portion of the laws giving DC home rule that make its laws carry the force of federal law? I don't believe that is the fact of the matter. It would be an interesting legal argument in court, but I don't think it is fact.

deanf · Apr 29, 2010

imported post

Is it the OPs contention that DC's municipal laws do not apply on federal property within the District?

Dreamer · Apr 29, 2010

imported post

It is the Ops proposition that the wording of the new FedPark gun carry laws might not apply in Fed Parks in the District of Columbia, because they specifically say that people must follow the "laws of the state wherein the Federal Park is located". Since DC is not a state, there are NO state laws to prohibit firearms there, only municipal codes, which are NOT listed as a legal construct under which carry in FedPark may be regulated...

I don't recommend anyone try to carry in a FedPark in DC--you would probably be jacked by about a dozen different LEA's who might legitimately claim jurisdiction, regardless of what the law actually says.

But the fact remains that the law says that when you are in a FedPark, you must follow the firearms laws of the STATE wherein the FedPark is located. The Mall is not located in a state. It is in a Federal District, and there is no mention of that specific kind of political entity in the law. The Federal District that is the District of Columbia is a unique sort of political entity in the US--NO OTHER Federal District exists here. But is is NOT a State, it is NOT a Territory, it is NOT a Protectorate, and it is NOT a Possession. It is a unique entity, with VERY specific rights, functions, and limitations.

And since the laws of "Federal Districts" are not enumerated as "controlling entities" in the FedPark carry law, I think a very strong argument could be made that carry there is legal.

There are NO federal laws prohibiting carrying a firearm on Federal Parkland. The only Federal law regulating firearms on Federal Parkland are the prohibitions on carry inside any building on Federal Parkland. So you couldn't carry your Glock up the elevator in the Washington Monument, but there is no Federal law that says you can't do it on the Parkland around the Monument. DC law is NOT state law.

Don't they teach that in school any more? DC is NOT a state. How much more clearly can I put it? And absent a "state", a "state law" cannot exist.

The tricky part is getting to Federal Parkland in DC without stepping on DC-controlled terra firma. FOPA protects you when transporting a firearm through DC from two jurisdictions where you may legally possess, but if you stop on DC property, you are not legal. Federal Parks are NOT DC property, and they are NOT under the legal jurisdiction of DC's government or Metro LEA's...

This is not convoluted thinking. I'm just pointing out that the wording of the FedPark carry law is VERY specific, and it appears that they simply forgot, when they wrote it, that technically, the carry ban in DC would not apply to FedParks in DC, because DC is not a state, and therefore there are no state laws to prohibit such activities in such parks...

Words have meaning folks. This one is pretty straightforward.

But like I said, the tricky part is getting TO said Federal Parkland without running afoul of the municipal laws...

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” — Samuel Adams

centsi · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Can you cite the portion of the laws giving DC home rule that make its laws carry the force of federal law? I don't believe that is the fact of the matter. It would be an interesting legal argument in court, but I don't think it is fact.

No, I cannot find a section of law that says that anything that the DC Council does carries the force of federal law. I'm not saying that you don't have an argument, but I think that DC would use my argument to defend their law as an extension of federal law, and that a court would probably agree with them.

eye95 · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

centsi wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Can you cite the portion of the laws giving DC home rule that make its laws carry the force of federal law? I don't believe that is the fact of the matter. It would be an interesting legal argument in court, but I don't think it is fact.

Click to expand...

No, I cannot find a section of law that says that anything that the DC Council does carries the force of federal law. I'm not saying that you don't have an argument, but I think that DC would use my argument to defend their law as an extension of federal law, and that a court would probably agree with them.

I am sure DC would. I just predict "fail." Epic fail.

darthmord · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

It is the Ops proposition that the wording of the new FedPark gun carry laws might not apply in Fed Parks in the District of Columbia, because they specifically say that people must follow the "laws of the state wherein the Federal Park is located". Since DC is not a state, there are NO state laws to prohibit firearms there, only municipal codes, which are NOT listed as a legal construct under which carry in FedPark may be regulated...

I don't recommend anyone try to carry in a FedPark in DC--you would probably be jacked by about a dozen different LEA's who might legitimately claim jurisdiction, regardless of what the law actually says.

But the fact remains that the law says that when you are in a FedPark, you must follow the firearms laws of the STATE wherein the FedPark is located. The Mall is not located in a state. It is in a Federal District, and there is no mention of that specific kind of political entity in the law. The Federal District that is the District of Columbia is a unique sort of political entity in the US--NO OTHER Federal District exists here. But is is NOT a State, it is NOT a Territory, it is NOT a Protectorate, and it is NOT a Possession. It is a unique entity, with VERY specific rights, functions, and limitations.

And since the laws of "Federal Districts" are not enumerated as "controlling entities" in the FedPark carry law, I think a very strong argument could be made that carry there is legal.

There are NO federal laws prohibiting carrying a firearm on Federal Parkland. The only Federal law regulating firearms on Federal Parkland are the prohibitions on carry inside any building on Federal Parkland. So you couldn't carry your Glock up the elevator in the Washington Monument, but there is no Federal law that says you can't do it on the Parkland around the Monument. DC law is NOT state law.

Don't they teach that in school any more? DC is NOT a state. How much more clearly can I put it? And absent a "state", a "state law" cannot exist.

The tricky part is getting to Federal Parkland in DC without stepping on DC-controlled terra firma. FOPA protects you when transporting a firearm through DC from two jurisdictions where you may legally possess, but if you stop on DC property, you are not legal. Federal Parks are NOT DC property, and they are NOT under the legal jurisdiction of DC's government or Metro LEA's...

This is not convoluted thinking. I'm just pointing out that the wording of the FedPark carry law is VERY specific, and it appears that they simply forgot, when they wrote it, that technically, the carry ban in DC would not apply to FedParks in DC, because DC is not a state, and therefore there are no state laws to prohibit such activities in such parks...

Words have meaning folks. This one is pretty straightforward.

But like I said, the tricky part is getting TO said Federal Parkland without running afoul of the municipal laws...

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” — Samuel Adams

Aren't there parking lots or other parking spaces that are part of the Federal Parklands within DC? If so, then drive from your safe start to the parking areas and you're legit.

deanf · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

It is the Ops proposition that the wording of the new FedPark gun carry laws might not apply in Fed Parks in the District of Columbia, because they specifically say that people must follow the "laws of the state wherein the Federal Park is located". Since DC is not a state, there are NO state laws to prohibit firearms there, only municipal codes, which are NOT listed as a legal construct under which carry in FedPark may be regulated...

Are the general municipal laws of DC in force on federal property within DC? Forget the context of the Park law for a moment. If not, why not?

Dreamer · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

Federal Parkland, like ALL Federal property, is sovereign. It is owned by the Federal Government, and therefore, like Military Bases, Federal Property falls under its own legal jurisdictions, and law enforcement is tasked to Federal Employees.

You've never seen a Sheriff patrolling a Federal Park, have you? That's because they have no jurisdiction, even though they are the "Primary LEO" in their county.

Jurisdictional Authority is an incredibly convoluted system of borders and boundaries, and Federal Land just adds one more layer of confusion and complexity to the system. DC is a case-study in the Cluster Foxtrot that Jurisdictional Authority can become. There are approximately 8-12 LEAs that can claim jurisdiction to most events that occur in DC, depending on the event, the exact location, and even the time of the year and residency status of the offender...

DC Metro PD, SS, DHS, ICE, IRS, FBI, Park Police, DOD, TSA, Department of State, US Marshall Service, Metro Transit Police, Capitol Police, and a few others have jurisdiction in DC. Who ends up with a case can be a matter of inches sometimes. If something happens on the train or the bus, it's MTP. If you've just stepped off the bus, and are standing on the sidewalk, its DCMPD. If you take a few steps and stand in the grass of the Mall, it's Park Police. If you walk a few blocks, and you're standing in front of the FBI HQ (which is only a few blocks off the Mall) you're under FBI JA. Walk a few more blocks south, and get near the Navy Yard, and now, you're NCIS's problem (DOD). And if you are a Teabagger, protester, or a "brown person", then DHS is going to want a piece of the action...

All the Federal Departments have their own armed security forces, with powers of arrest. DC is a proverbial Mongolian FlusterF#@% of Jurisdictional Authority. Even the LEO's in DC often don't find out where their "beat" ends, and someone else's Authority begins, until hours (or even days) after an arrest is made.

deanf · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

Federal Parkland, like ALL Federal property, is sovereign. It is owned by the Federal Government, and therefore, like Military Bases, Federal Property falls under its own legal jurisdictions, and law enforcement is tasked to Federal Employees.

Then why does Forest Service land "defer to the gun laws of the state in which the Forest is located"? This is a paraphrase of the rules as explained by the Forest Service for nearly all their national forests. And how come county sheriff's deputies routinely patrol forest service land, enforcing county and state law? Furthermore, why are state fishing and hunting laws fully enforced on federal land, by officers commissioned by the state?

(I understand that some state officers are cross-commissioned as federal officers under certain circumstances. What I'm referring to are officers that are commissioned by the state government enforcing state law on federal land.)

By your reasoning, the only gun laws that would apply on Forest Service land would be federal ones, yet we know that not to be the case. Same for the fishing and hunting laws.

Don't think I'm confused. I bring up the Forest Service as an example. I know the thrust of your theory has to do with National Parks.

eye95 · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

Federal Parkland, like ALL Federal property, is sovereign. It is owned by the Federal Government, and therefore, like Military Bases, Federal Property falls under its own legal jurisdictions, and law enforcement is tasked to Federal Employees.

Click to expand...

Then why does Forest Service land "defer to the gun laws of the state in which the Forest is located"? This is a paraphrase of the rules as explained by the Forest Service for nearly all their national forests. And how come county sheriff's deputies routinely patrol forest service land, enforcing county and state law? Furthermore, why are state fishing and hunting laws fully enforced on federal land, by officers commissioned by the state?

(I understand that some state officers are cross-commissioned as federal officers under certain circumstances. What I'm referring to are officers that are commissioned by the state government enforcing state law on federal land.)

By your reasoning, the only gun laws that would apply on Forest Service land would be federal ones, yet we know that not to be the case. Same for the fishing and hunting laws.

Don't think I'm confused. I bring up the Forest Service as an example. I know the thrust of your theory has to do with National Parks.

The national parks have a similar rule. The only problem is that the Mall is not within a State!

Statkowski · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

Federal Parkland, like ALL Federal property, is sovereign. It is owned by the Federal Government, and therefore, like Military Bases, Federal Property falls under its own legal jurisdictions, and law enforcement is tasked to Federal Employees.

Click to expand...

Then why does Forest Service land "defer to the gun laws of the state in which the Forest is located"? This is a paraphrase of the rules as explained by the Forest Service for nearly all their national forests. And how come county sheriff's deputies routinely patrol forest service land, enforcing county and state law? Furthermore, why are state fishing and hunting laws fully enforced on federal land, by officers commissioned by the state?

(I understand that some state officers are cross-commissioned as federal officers under certain circumstances. What I'm referring to are officers that are commissioned by the state government enforcing state law on federal land.)

By your reasoning, the only gun laws that would apply on Forest Service land would be federal ones, yet we know that not to be the case. Same for the fishing and hunting laws.

Don't think I'm confused. I bring up the Forest Service as an example. I know the thrust of your theory has to do with National Parks.

There are things called Exclusive Jurisdiction and Joint or Shared Jurisdiction. Only when a state legislature has ceded land to the federal government, such as with a military installation, then the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction. In all other cases, both state and federal law applies to other federal locations situated in a state. This is why local cops patrol U.S. Forest Service land - it was never ceded to the federal government.

The federales may attempt to bluster local police forces into believing that federal jurisdiction trumps state jurisdiction, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

See Article 1, Section 8.

deanf · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

So, notwithstanding the National Parks carry law, why does DC municipal law not apply on national parks land inside the District?

Why do DC statutes against murder not apply? Why do DC statutes against theft not apply? Why do DC statutes against DUI not apply? Why do DC statutes against rape not apply? Why do DC statutes against off-leash dogs not apply? Why do DC statutes against . . . . . . not apply?

1245A Defender · Apr 30, 2010

imported post

dc law against rape, robbery, dui, etc do apply in the parks,,, but they are not protected rights, and are not now allowed by the national parks gun law....
i think dreamer is on to something here,, DC cant have a STATE law!!

deanf · May 1, 2010

imported post

DC cant have a STATE law!!

I concur, and as such the Parks legislation can't apply to them, but I see no evidence that regular DC municipal law does not apply on Parks land inside the District.

Pace · May 1, 2010

imported post

http://www.nps.gov/nama/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

addresses this. They claim its LOCAL and STATE laws.

Interesting question

eye95 · May 1, 2010

imported post

Pace wrote:

http://www.nps.gov/nama/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm

addresses this. They claim its LOCAL and STATE laws.

Interesting question

They are wrong.

From the OP:

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."

From a later post:

Title 36 - Parks, Forests, and Public Property Chapter 1 - National Park Service, DOI PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1.4 What 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.

DC is not a State, territory, or a possession. It is not a political subdivision of one of these.

I don't doubt that the authors of the law intended that DC be treated as a State. It just isn't one under the law's own explicit definition!

LOOPHOLE!

deanf · May 1, 2010

imported post

LOOPHOLE!

Ok. For the Parks law. Yes. We've established that.

But doesn't the municipal law of DC still apply on Parks land in the District?

If not, why not?

eye95 · May 1, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

LOOPHOLE!

Click to expand...

Ok. For the Parks law. Yes. We've established that.

But doesn't the municipal law of DC still apply on Parks land in the District?

If not, why not?

Because federal law explicitly says that State gun laws applies in national parks. If federal law were silent on the subject, that would be different. But, it isn't silent. It states which laws apply.

Dreamer · May 1, 2010

imported post

This little working "loophole" in the FedPark law puts the courts in an interesting position. Should someone decide to attempt to carry in a FedPark in DC, and get arrested, the only way that they could apply DC law to the charge would be to either:

1) change the wording of the law and then retroactively charge him, which would violate the Constitution, or

2) declare that DC was a State, and proclaim that it's municipal laws held the same legal position as State law, which would be unconstitutional, because only Congress and the other States can create new states, NOT the Courts, or

3) Declare that although DC is NOT a state, it's laws hold the same legal position of a State.

An interesting tertiary side-effect to the courts taking choice 3 is that is would set up a legal precedent for nullifying State Preemption law, because it would give DC municipal law the same legal weight as State Law.

It appears that if a rational court, that followed the letter of the law on this issue were to actually hear such a case, it puts the Feds and DC in a VERY awkward position of either:

1) admitting that DC's gun ban doesn't apply in FEdParks in DC, or

2) admitting that DC is legally the same as a State, thereby creating a de-facto Statehood condition for DC, or

3) forcing the other States to have their Preemption laws placed in a precarious position due to legal precedent.

The deeper we examine the ramifications of this little legal conundrum, the more fascinating and interesting it becomes...

Are guns REALLY illegal on the DC Mall?

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member