Open Carry Question

First, I am a newbie living most of the year in Michigan. My wife recently moved here and lives and works in Las Vegas. I just came out to visit and brought her a home defense 12 gauge so she has some protection while home alone. A cop friend years ago told me that the sound of the 870 chambering a round is a universal language. I know it would give me pause. Anyway, from what I gather in reading the forum, Nevada considers having a handgun in your car ok under OC as long as it is not concealed on your person. Hallelujah.
Question, hiking around in the National Recreation Area near Mt. Charleston or Red Rock, is it ok to OC there or are there federal regs in play there?
Thank you for your consideration.

I was hoping for some input to the same question when it comes to carrying open at Mt. Charleston or Red Rock. Anyone have any firsthand experience or knowledge of this. I know it has been posted here some have open carried on a motorcycle through the pay station at Lake Mead and on the roads of Lake Mead. I have also open carried on a motorcycle past the pay station and in the campground of Katherine’s landing Arizona side of Lake Mojave.

A few weeks back I posted a email from the folks at Red Rock. OC and CC is OK, EXCEPT the visitor center or other fed buildings on the land.

the buildings would have to be posted - if not oc is legal.
anyway, new law last yr means nat parks have to obey state law, like you can carry in Yellowstone now!

oh yeah, afaik carry the gun in the glove compartment only to be safe, the NRS mentions it as the place to carry.

chrsjhnsn said:

the buildings would have to be posted - if not oc is legal.
anyway, new law last yr means nat parks have to obey state law, like you can carry in Yellowstone now!

Click to expand...

Really OC is legal in a Federal building?
And Red Rock is NOT a national park. It is BLM.

Vegassteve said:

Really OC is legal in a Federal building?
And Red Rock is NOT a national park. It is BLM.

Click to expand...

Red Rock is a National Conservation Area ( http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/blm_special_areas/red_rock_nca.html ). What this means as far as buildings go, I'm not sure, IANAL. But one could extrapolate that a building built upon a National Conservation Area, by the Federal Government, is possibly a "Federal Building". As such, the appropriate rules for carry would apply.

gmijackso said:

Red Rock is a National Conservation Area ( http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/blm_special_areas/red_rock_nca.html ). What this means as far as buildings go, I'm not sure, IANAL. But one could extrapolate that a building built upon a National Conservation Area, by the Federal Government, is possibly a "Federal Building". As such, the appropriate rules for carry would apply.

Click to expand...

Which was my point. Fed buildings are off limits, the other poster seems to think they need sign.

Vegassteve said:

Which was my point. Fed buildings are off limits, the other poster seems to think they need sign.

Click to expand...

Neither you nor the other is totally accurate.
According to 18 U.S.C. § 930:

(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.

Click to expand...

Making you correct, it is illegal to possess a firearm in a Federal facility unless exempted by a subsection (i.e. officer on duty, etc).

However, also in said section:

(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.

Click to expand...

Making the other poster correct as well. Technically it is still illegal to carry in a Federal building, but if it is not posted, there can be no punishment unless you have been notified previously (trespassed maybe?). I think the other posters stance was that a law without consequences is no law at all. Personally, if I knew it was a Federal building, posted or not, I wouldn't press my luck.

gmijackso-

Good find. Are you aware of anything specifically for US Post Offices? I know they are not posted, at least the ones I used to frequent, but I won't even drive onto the property of a post office anymore. Makes it difficult to mail packages, I usually have to find a mail store and cross my fingers.

But if it's required that it be posted unless previously informed, maybe there's ultimately no harm/no foul to CC into one? Or at least no longer have to worry about committing a crime by leaving it in the glove box while you run in real quick...

timf343 said:

gmijackso-

Good find. Are you aware of anything specifically for US Post Offices? I know they are not posted, at least the ones I used to frequent, but I won't even drive onto the property of a post office anymore. Makes it difficult to mail packages, I usually have to find a mail store and cross my fingers.

But if it's required that it be posted unless previously informed, maybe there's ultimately no harm/no foul to CC into one? Or at least no longer have to worry about committing a crime by leaving it in the glove box while you run in real quick...

Click to expand...

Post offices are under a different law specific to post offices. Here is a link to the specific law:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=39&PART=232&SECTION=1&TYPE=Text

And from the first section....

"(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under
the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies,
and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall
be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.
This section shall not apply to--...."

Interesting there is a requirement that "This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property." from the 2nd sentence of the above quote. I've not reviewed specifically YET is failure to post or keep posted invalidates the prohibition on carry.

Didn't see anything stating the failure to post will invalidate any portion of THIS regulation but here is the penalty for a conviction....

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and
regulations in this section while on property under the charge and
control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine of not more than $50
or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in
these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other
Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations
applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

And the case MUST be heard in the federal court system BUT local LEA's may be authorized to enforce!

timf343 said:

gmijackso-

Good find. Are you aware of anything specifically for US Post Offices? I know they are not posted, at least the ones I used to frequent, but I won't even drive onto the property of a post office anymore. Makes it difficult to mail packages, I usually have to find a mail store and cross my fingers.

But if it's required that it be posted unless previously informed, maybe there's ultimately no harm/no foul to CC into one? Or at least no longer have to worry about committing a crime by leaving it in the glove box while you run in real quick...

Click to expand...

Tim I know my post office on Tenya and the one on Tenya and the one in the Albertsons on cheyenne are posted. BUT the sign is all the way inside the building. You dont see it until you are in line.

gmijackso said:

Making the other poster correct as well. Technically it is still illegal to carry in a Federal building, but if it is not posted, there can be no punishment unless you have been notified previously (trespassed maybe?). I think the other posters stance was that a law without consequences is no law at all. Personally, if I knew it was a Federal building, posted or not, I wouldn't press my luck.

Click to expand...

True I did know of that part of the code and as you pointed out it is just vague enough to get someone in trouble.
I also think in the new park law it does say something about fed employees and no need for signs.
While in Glacier Park this year I did notice they put up new signs at any building and part of a building rangers were in. Inside the hotels where the rangers hold talks a sign was posted outside the room they held the talk in.

So as with many fed law I guess it really is at your own risk. I have very little doubt though that if one OC in red rock visitor center it would be a huge deal.

Alo

I agree, I have no reference to point to however every time I heard or read about the new law saying the parks were to follow the state laws when it comes to gun laws they always would followed it up with, however firearms will not be allowed in the buildings. Not clear to me it they will be required to do any posting.

timf343 said:

gmijackso-

Good find. Are you aware of anything specifically for US Post Offices? I know they are not posted, at least the ones I used to frequent, but I won't even drive onto the property of a post office anymore. Makes it difficult to mail packages, I usually have to find a mail store and cross my fingers.

But if it's required that it be posted unless previously informed, maybe there's ultimately no harm/no foul to CC into one? Or at least no longer have to worry about committing a crime by leaving it in the glove box while you run in real quick...

Click to expand...

Well I've found a couple of things. First, it depends on how literal you want to take 39 U.S.C. § 410. It reads in part:

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.

Click to expand...

Now, i don't really know anything about that particular code, but from the context, it seems to be leaning toward the "doing business with others" end of things. But technically, it reads that "No Federal law dealing with the public,... property... shall apply." So it would seem that 39 U.S.C. § 410 could be voiding 18 U.S.C. § 930 as it applies to Post Offices. But I think if pressed, or researched better than I have had time for recently, one would find that the spirit of this is not what the wording seems here, and would be a hard press for anybody to use as defense.

Another approach as well however, is paragraph (d)(3) in the previously mentioned 18 U.S.C. § 930. It reads:

(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.

Click to expand...

(bold for appropriate areas).

Again, not sure what the spirit here was, but it seems that they intended to mean that it was ok to carry a firearm in a facility that would require you to bring the firearm there (i.e. for licencing of some sort or what have you).

Alot of the above is pure speculation as to the interpretation on my part, and should be taken a such.
However, here is an interesting thought. Firearms as a whole are somewhat obviously not totally banned, as you are able to ship certain firearms, and logically require you to deliver them somehow. Note however that "concealable firearms" are prohibited from being shipped. http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4_009.htm

Personally, I have the mail carrier pick up any packages I need to ship, print postage online, and the pickup by your normal carrier is free. Saves all of the hassle.

Personally, I do NOT want to be a Test Case for a 18 U.S.C. 930(d)(3) Exception, off of The Authority of a State Permit to Carry a Firearm..., pursuant to anything other than Hunting.

gmijackso said:

Well I've found a couple of things. First, it depends on how literal you want to take 39 U.S.C. § 410. It reads in part:


Now, i don't really know anything about that particular code, but from the context, it seems to be leaning toward the "doing business with others" end of things. But technically, it reads that "No Federal law dealing with the public,... property... shall apply." So it would seem that 39 U.S.C. § 410 could be voiding 18 U.S.C. § 930 as it applies to Post Offices. But I think if pressed, or researched better than I have had time for recently, one would find that the spirit of this is not what the wording seems here, and would be a hard press for anybody to use as defense.

Another approach as well however, is paragraph (d)(3) in the previously mentioned 18 U.S.C. § 930. It reads:
(bold for appropriate areas).

Again, not sure what the spirit here was, but it seems that they intended to mean that it was ok to carry a firearm in a facility that would require you to bring the firearm there (i.e. for licencing of some sort or what have you).

Alot of the above is pure speculation as to the interpretation on my part, and should be taken a such.
However, here is an interesting thought. Firearms as a whole are somewhat obviously not totally banned, as you are able to ship certain firearms, and logically require you to deliver them somehow. Note however that "concealable firearms" are prohibited from being shipped. http://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4_009.htm

Personally, I have the mail carrier pick up any packages I need to ship, print postage online, and the pickup by your normal carrier is free. Saves all of the hassle.

Click to expand...

Well, as you indicate, it shows "hunting or other lawful purposes." I see no rational method to conclude that this is for licensing of something, but it is "incident to" those generalities. For instance, if you are carrying a firearm "incident to hunting," what does that have to do with "lawful carry in federal building?" Is it for licensing, shipping, or is it because you carry the firarm while engaged in otherwise-lawful activities, and happen to pass in/through/out of the Post Office "incidental to...." those lawful activities?

Where OC or CC is lawful, this seems to allow carry in the Post office.

The post office is off limits per 39 CFR 232.1 ( http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/39cfr232.1.htm ) which provides no exception for carrying a firearm incident to hunting or other lawful activity.

Felid`Maximus said:

The post office is off limits per 39 CFR 232.1 ( http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/39cfr232.1.htm ) which provides no exception for carrying a firearm incident to hunting or other lawful activity.

Click to expand...

This appears to be a case of "what is the regulation to follow," and highlights the need to "cite to authority." In this case, here is a relevant portion of 39 CFR which references the 39 USC previously cited:
http://vlex.com/vid/211-1-disposition-former-title-39-19776940

TITLE 39 - POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER I - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

SUBCHAPTER D - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

PART 211 - APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS

211.1 - Disposition of former title 39, U.S.C. Except as otherwise continued in effect as postal regulations, all provisions of former title 39, U.S.C., which were continued in effect as regulations of the Postal Service by section 5(f) of the Postal Reorganization Act, are revoked. This revocation does not apply to postal regulations which embody or are derived from provisions of former title 39.



Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/211-1-disposition-former-title-39-19776940#ixzz1DOvhWEBo

Click to expand...

So, while the 39USC410 appears to state one thing, it is revoked by 39CFR?