Letters to Congress regarding firearms in federal buildings

imported post

Has anyone ever wrote a letter to U.S. Congress regarding TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > §930 of the U.S. Code?

It clearly reads: (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.

and section (e)

(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.

With the exemptions being

(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.



The Second Amendment clearly reads

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


I feel my rights, as a citizen of the United States and the State of Washington, are being infringed, when I cannot legally carry my firearm inside the U.S. Post Office and the Social Security Office - two places where people regularly do business.

Do you believe that we, as the people of the U.S. can voice our opinion loud enough to let Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court hear it?

imported post

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

(3) crops up in many LAWS, and "other lawful purposes" seems like it would
make almost all lawful carry good to go virtually everywhere.

why wont someone go to the post office with his shotgun, on the way to duck hunting
and become a good test case to clear up some of these questions in our behalf?

imported post

Because the Fed's don't play fair in court.

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

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

(3) crops up in many LAWS, and "other lawful purposes" seems like it would
make almost all lawful carry good to go virtually everywhere.

why wont someone go to the post office with his shotgun, on the way to duck hunting
and become a good test case to clear up some of these questions in our behalf?

Click to expand...

Has Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court determined if "other lawful purposes" included personal defense? Have there been any case laws on that particular defense? When it says "incident to hunting", do they mean that you're on your way to or from hunting, and you're making a stop at a federal building?

imported post

Also, I read the sign on the Post Office wall. It read something like "No firearms or weapons of any kind allowed on U.S. Post Office property, with the exception of commissioned law enforcement only."

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Also, I read the sign on the Post Office wall. It read something like "No firearms or weapons of any kind allowed on U.S. Post Office property, with the exception of commissioned law enforcement only."

Click to expand...

That's rather amusing, since people send rifles by USPS all the time. I've been asked by postal clerks to take out rifles and demonstrate the unloaded status before sealing the package to ship it.

imported post

Well there you have it for "other lawful purposes". No lawsuit needed.

My purpose does not matter... as long as it's not UNlawful. So unless your intent is to do harm, your good to go.

It's similar in nature to Alabama public school law, in that you cannot carry there with intent to do harm. Otherwise your good to go.

imported post

Worth Reading:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atla...pon-into-the-Kennesaw-Mountain-visitor-center


(Ed Stone is the President of GeorgiaCarry.Org, the most active voice for restoring the right to bear arms in Georgia. He is a practicing construction law attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, a former police officer and a military veteran)
February 26, 7:09 AM Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner Ed Stone

Monday marked the first day for legalcarry firearms into hundreds of national parks and wildlife refuges under a new law passed last year. In response to Monday's article, several people sent inquiries askingwhether it wasperfectly legal to carry into the buildings, because the federal facilities law, 18 USC 930, contains an exception for firearms that are carried into the buildings incidental to hunting or other lawful purposes.
In addition, the law requires noticeto be posted conspicuously at each public entrance.
Both of these things are stated quite clearly in federal law, but be forewarned: they may not mean what you think they mean. Let's start with the "notice" law. Word for word, it states:
It clearly says "posted conspicuously at each public entrance." Thoseof you who have ever been in a post office, however, will recall that the sign is is usually not at the entrance, but somewhere inside the building on a bulletin board.
In a recent federal court case from Maine, a man was convicted of carrying a black powder pistol into the lobby of a federal building. He defended himself by arguing that the signs were on the far side of the lobby and not "at each public entrance," and, therefore, he should not be convicted unless he walked past the metal detectors and signs. The court disagreed, holding that the man had notice.
The sign law does not apply if "such person had actual notice of subsection (a)." Subsection(a) is simplythe part of the law that says it is illegal to carry a weapon into a federal facility. Bloggers commenting on thenotice aspect of the federal law never mention this portion of the law, but it isat the end of the quote posted above. Therefore, once a park ranger tells you your weapon is illegal inside the building, you have your actual notice regardless of the lack of a sign at the entrance.
As to the exception in 930(d)(3) for "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes," please be aware that there is no federal case discussing the meaning of this specific exception to the law. While some claim itmeans that a person lawfully carrying a holstered handgun for self defense in a National Park should be able to carry it into the visitor's center, since self defense is "a lawful purpose," the people making such claims are not federal judges.The plain truth is that this provision has never been tested in federal court. The downside of being the first test case is that failure carries the potential penalty of federal prison.
Remember that the federal judges who will determine such cases work in federal buildings, and their viewpoint may be colored by their particular circumstance.