What does Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court define "other lawful purposes"?

imported post

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

(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.




It clearly says "or other lawful purposes". Does Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court define what is meant by "lawful purposes"? Is self defense considered "lawful purposes" by their definition?

Has this ever been challenged?

imported post

And apparently I can still carry O.C. Sprays and my Taser device onto Federal Property, because they aren't included in the list of "dangerous weapons" according to their definition.

"(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."

imported post

I looked into this a while back and there is apparently no case law that addresses this issue. We'll just have to wait for the test case for something more definitive. But the SCOTUS did affirm in D.C. vs Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and if they incorporate it as expected with the upcoming McDonald vs Chicago decision, it seems to me that it would be hard to argue that self defense is not a lawful purpose.

imported post

I just contacted both Congress and the U.S. Supreme court regarding this law.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

I just contacted both Congress and the U.S. Supreme court regarding this law.

Click to expand...

Good luck getting any response.

imported post

geojohn wrote:

I looked into this a while back and there is apparently no case law that addresses this issue. We'll just have to wait for the test case for something more definitive. But the SCOTUS did affirm in D.C. vs Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and if they incorporate it as expected with the upcoming McDonald vs Chicago decision, it seems to me that it would be hard to argue that self defense is not a lawful purpose.

Click to expand...

Here is a great read on the issue at hand:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atla...pon-into-the-Kennesaw-Mountain-visitor-center

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

I just contacted both Congress and the U.S. Supreme court regarding this law.

Click to expand...

Good luck getting any response.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard Jack Diddly so far.