Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Federal Building

  1. #1
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,323

    Federal Building

    I just found this post on the WY forum and it was put there by a founders club member. Take a look at the highlighted part and tell me if carry for self defense would not be considered an "other lawful purpose".



    The carry of a firearm in a 'federal building'
    How many of you have actually read Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 930?
    That is the part of the United States Code that is used to forbid the carry of a weapon into a federal building - and it is false.

    Copied here for your education and edification is that portion of THE LAW.
    The green section concerns how current this information is.
    The red hi-lighted areas are the areas that make it LAWFUL to carry in a 'federal facility'. Since 'open carry' is a "lawful activity" with the borders of the Sovereign State of Wyoming and Federal Law now allows carry in National Parks "according to the LAWS of the States containing said National Parks" it is LAWFUL of carry in a park building (unless privately owned) within the portion of Yellowstone lying within the bounds of the State of Wyoming.
    ======
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930
    § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here.

    (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.
    (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.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (g) As used in this section:
    (1) The term “Federal facility” means 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.
    (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.
    (3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
    =====
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227
    It has been discussed here several times. Yes, according to the law it appears that we could carry into federal buildings, except that there are court cases of people being convicted in court for exactly that. No one here has volunteered to be a test case with the court. If you would like to volunteer talk with your lawyer first.

    Here is an article about one such case. The guy ended up being found not guilty because the signs were not posted properly, but nothing regarding 'other lawful purposes.' I believe this has been corrupted to mean 'what we say is ok' or 'except for official purposes.'

    http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c...7.83-2128.html
    Last edited by nathan; 09-21-2010 at 12:49 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,048

    also....

    the prohibition against carry in the post office also has "other lawful purpose words, and signage requirements".
    but here in belfair, my P.O. is not posted AT ALL!!! not inside, or out!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    295
    It all boils down to what SCOTUS says as if they have a legitimate clause in the Constitution that grants them the power to interpret the law. Damn that Marbury v. Madison
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  5. #5
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    404
    Found this case...not sure if it's the most current or not, but it is from 2010. I don't buy their reasoning, but it's what they came up with.

    http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfr...007.DNM.htm/qx

    United States v. Cruz-Bancroft

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

    "Defendant argues that § 930(d)(3) permits carrying a firearm into any Federal facility if one was carrying firearm lawfully outside of the Federal facility. However, this interpretation of the exception in § 930(d)(3) suffers from several defects. First, it does not give full effect to the entire statute, which requires a lawful purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. If mere lawful possession of the weapon outside the facility were enough, then there would be no need for the phrase "hunting or other lawful purposes." Thus, the Court concludes that in accordance with the statute, the factfinder should determine Defendant's purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. Second, Defendant's interpretation of § 930(d)(3) would largely swallow the prohibition set forth in § 930(a) generally prohibiting firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities. If mere lawful possession of the firearm outside the Federal facility were enough to permit someone to bring it inside, virtually anyone could bring such a weapon inside a Federal facility for any reason, particularly in a state like New Mexico which liberally permits individuals to carry unconcealed firearms. Finally, Defendant's interpretation would result in inconsistent results. As the parties have pointed out, state laws regarding possessing and carrying weapons in public vary considerably. Some states, like New Mexico, permit citizens to carry unconcealed firearms in public without a license, while others have more restrictive laws. Thus, under Defendant's interpretation of the statute, his act of bringing an unconcealed weapon into a Federal facility would not be unlawful in New Mexico, but would constitute a crime in some other states. There is no indication that Congress intended such an uneven result when it enacted this law to protect those who work and conduct business in Federal facilities."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,755
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 09-21-2010 at 01:07 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member xxx.jakk.xxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, United States
    Posts
    506
    RCW 9.41.060 says
    "lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding"

    Since Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 930 does mention "hunting or other lawful purposes.", couldn't you take away from that that Fishing, Camping, Hiking, etc were all "Lawful Purposes" because of RCW 9.41.060? At least in Washington State? I know that the section I'm referring to doesn't actually have to do with that particular rule and that State Laws < Federal Laws, but wouldn't it just add to the "Lawful Purposes" that actually would qualify in this state? I know that I could always go for a Hike. =]


    --------------------------
    Hiking
    to walk or march a great distance, esp. through rural areas, for pleasure, exercise, military training, or the like.
    (Definition by Dictionary.com)

    As long as you walk a great distance to reach said building, you are Hiking.
    Last edited by xxx.jakk.xxx; 09-21-2010 at 01:23 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member skiingislife725's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lake Stevens, WA
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    As far as post offices go, it looks like 18 USC 930 doesn't apply and that 39 CFR 232.1 takes over (from the reasoning given on this link).

    See here: http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/g...st-office.html

  9. #9
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,260
    another thread worth reading:
    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...visitor-center

    <snip>
    While some claim it means 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.
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 09-21-2010 at 05:00 PM.
    Do you want to get your Oregon Concealed Handgun License? Sheriff Dickerson of Columbia County Oregon will be at theTacoma Dome Show in April 2015. Everything you need to get your Oregon CHL is linked through the website or you can use the information from the website and make an appointment and apply at his office in St Helens, Oregon.
    http://www.washingtongunrights.com/ccso

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    1
    I don't know if it's against the law but I can tell you I'm not allowed to bring my CCW where I work in a federal building. That includes the parking lot which is very disappointing. Even our police are not allowed to bring their personal handguns on the property.

  11. #11
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    416
    the National Association for Gun Rights has filed a lawsuit against the United State Postal Service...

    http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/22/l...ffice-gun-ban/

    “Going postal?”

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by in michigan View Post
    I don't know if it's against the law but I can tell you I'm not allowed to bring my CCW where I work in a federal building. That includes the parking lot which is very disappointing. Even our police are not allowed to bring their personal handguns on the property.
    So who is going to arrest someone for bringing a gun onto the property, if no one can be armed?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Thos.Jefferson View Post
    It all boils down to what SCOTUS says as if they have a legitimate clause in the Constitution that grants them the power to interpret the law. Damn that Marbury v. Madison
    I wouldn't think M v. M would have any bearing here. Since the post office is a federally authorized activity, woudln't SCOTUS powers have always extended to them under the original jurisdiction.

  14. #14
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,260
    http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/22/l...ffice-gun-ban/

    If there’s anything that makes a concealed carry permit holder upset, its criminal safezones.A criminal safezone is where only criminals are safe, because armed self defense is banned. That’s why the National Association for Gun Rights has filed a lawsuit against the United State Postal Service.
    The U.S. Postal Service uses bureaucratic rules to ban your right to carry in a Post Office, and that’s important, even if you don’t carry concealed –- it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.
    You see, the U.S. Postal Service claims citizens don’t have the right to self defense in Post Offices.
    There’s one problem with that claim: it isn’t true.
    Do you want to get your Oregon Concealed Handgun License? Sheriff Dickerson of Columbia County Oregon will be at theTacoma Dome Show in April 2015. Everything you need to get your Oregon CHL is linked through the website or you can use the information from the website and make an appointment and apply at his office in St Helens, Oregon.
    http://www.washingtongunrights.com/ccso

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,586

    This will be interesting.

    Keep in mind that SCOTUS did say that the government has the right to regulate in government buildings.

    It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying
    of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/22/l...ffice-gun-ban/

    If there’s anything that makes a concealed carry permit holder upset, its criminal safezones.A criminal safezone is where only criminals are safe, because armed self defense is banned. That’s why the National Association for Gun Rights has filed a lawsuit against the United State Postal Service.
    The U.S. Postal Service uses bureaucratic rules to ban your right to carry in a Post Office, and that’s important, even if you don’t carry concealed –- it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.
    You see, the U.S. Postal Service claims citizens don’t have the right to self defense in Post Offices.
    There’s one problem with that claim: it isn’t true.

    Isn't it a Federal law passed by Congress, rather than the postal service? Or is it a "rule"? enacted by the postal service? Only the Legislature can make and pass laws, right?

Posting Permissions

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