Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: No Pets, no guns...Inside the building at Jamestown Island - a National Park

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    No Pets, no guns...Inside the building at Jamestown Island - a National Park

    After Mothers day lunch in at the Surrey House, we went to Jamestown Island. I decided to see if I could get a reaction from the Ranger at the Information desk. She was an older lady.


  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    If it's a building in which federal employees regularly do their jobs, then it's "federal facilities", as to which handguns are prohibited with some exceptions. But, one of those exceptions says,
    18 USC Sec. 930 "...(d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to - ...(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. ..."
    I would argue that (1) the law of the state in which any incident occurs relating to the ownership, possession, or use of firearms pre-empts federal law to the contrary (U.S.Const. Amendment 10); (2) the definition of "lawful purposes" depends on the law of that state; (3) the carrying of firearms for self defense is by definition a lawful purpose (U.S. Const. Amend. 2, Heller v. D.C., as well as Va. Const. Art. I, Sxn 13, and if concealed, by Va. Code sxn 18.2-308.

    Violation of the federal statute requires a "knowing" violation; that makes it a "specific intent offense". If one has reason to know he's violating the law, then he's got the "mens rea" or "intent" to be found guilty. If on the other hand, he believes he is not violating the statute because of his "lawful purpose", then he's not guilty. Here's an example of the sort of logic we're talking about - remember when Bill Clinton was indicted for perjury for having said, "I did not have sex with that woman!"? He got off because he said he "believed" at the time of the statement that he was not lying, because "having sex" did not include fellatio, but only coitus.
    Last edited by user; 05-08-2011 at 07:39 PM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    What I was expecting her to say was that you couldn't have a gun on the property. She blindsided me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    If it's a building in which federal employees regularly do their jobs, then it's "federal facilities", as to which handguns are prohibited with some exceptions. But, one of those exceptions says,

    I would argue that (1) the law of the state in which any incident occurs relating to the ownership, possession, or use of firearms pre-empts federal law to the contrary (U.S.Const. Amendment 10); (2) the definition of "lawful purposes" depends on the law of that state; (3) the carrying of firearms for self defense is by definition a lawful purpose (U.S. Const. Amend. 2, Heller v. D.C., as well as Va. Const. Art. I, Sxn 13, and if concealed, by Va. Code sxn 18.2-308.

    Violation of the federal statute requires a "knowing" violation; that makes it a "specific intent offense". If one has reason to know he's violating the law, then he's got the "mens rea" or "intent" to be found guilty. If on the other hand, he believes he is not violating the statute because of his "lawful purpose", then he's not guilty. Here's an example of the sort of logic we're talking about - remember when Bill Clinton was indicted for perjury for having said, "I did not have sex with that woman!"? He got off because he said he "believed" at the time of the statement that he was not lying, because "having sex" did not include fellatio, but only coitus.
    Where's our "Rosa Parks?"

    TFred

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    What I was expecting her to say was that you couldn't have a gun on the property. She blindsided me.
    How did that work out for you?

  6. #6
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317

    Lightbulb

    18 USC Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    How Current is This? (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.

    Loophole? ??????

    Federal facility also like Post office? the grounds/parking lot? Could we start a a case and challenge it?

    "other lawful purposes" self defence.
    Last edited by ocholsteroc; 05-09-2011 at 12:32 AM.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    remember when Bill Clinton was indicted for perjury for having said, "I did not have sex with that woman!"? He got off because
    Oh man how I wanted to finish that for you.. lol
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Never Never Land
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    Loophole? ??????

    Federal facility also like Post office? the grounds/parking lot? Could we start a a case and challenge it?

    "other lawful purposes" self defence.
    One would need very deep pockets for that.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by xdm guy View Post
    One would need very deep pockets for that.
    Correct. There is no equivalent of 15.2-915 in the U.S. Code. And even if there were a case challenging the application of the statute, it probably would not go to an appeal, and would therefore have no value as a precedent.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Stepehens City, VA
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Correct. There is no equivalent of 15.2-915 in the U.S. Code. And even if there were a case challenging the application of the statute, it probably would not go to an appeal, and would therefore have no value as a precedent.
    I thought there was a case pending from a couple out west that has no choice but to physically go to the post office to collect their mail because there is no delivery service. Last I read it hadn't proceeded to trial but I'll try and find the link.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by cyras21 View Post
    I thought there was a case pending from a couple out west that has no choice but to physically go to the post office to collect their mail because there is no delivery service. Last I read it hadn't proceeded to trial but I'll try and find the link.
    look in colorado
    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!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Stepehens City, VA
    Posts
    152

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    634

    In regards to Bill Clinton...,

    I don't have the "education" that Bill Clinton does, but I know when I've had sex, and when I've been screwed, and there is clearly, quite a difference.

    sidestreet

    we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by sidestreet View Post
    I don't have the "education" that Bill Clinton does, but I know when I've had sex, and when I've been screwed, and there is clearly, quite a difference.

    sidestreet

    we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.
    That's absolutely true Sidestreet, but I expect things would get a little confusing if you were married to Hillary.

  15. #15
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by sidestreet View Post
    I don't have the "education" that Bill Clinton does, but I know when I've had sex, and when I've been screwed, and there is clearly, quite a difference.
    It all depends greatly... on a number of factors.

    However, I am pretty sure I know what the definition of "is" is.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    If it's a building in which federal employees regularly do their jobs, then it's "federal facilities", as to which handguns are prohibited with some exceptions. But, one of those exceptions says,

    I would argue that (1) the law of the state in which any incident occurs relating to the ownership, possession, or use of firearms pre-empts federal law to the contrary (U.S.Const. Amendment 10); (2) the definition of "lawful purposes" depends on the law of that state; (3) the carrying of firearms for self defense is by definition a lawful purpose (U.S. Const. Amend. 2, Heller v. D.C., as well as Va. Const. Art. I, Sxn 13, and if concealed, by Va. Code sxn 18.2-308.

    Violation of the federal statute requires a "knowing" violation; that makes it a "specific intent offense". If one has reason to know he's violating the law, then he's got the "mens rea" or "intent" to be found guilty. If on the other hand, he believes he is not violating the statute because of his "lawful purpose", then he's not guilty. Here's an example of the sort of logic we're talking about - remember when Bill Clinton was indicted for perjury for having said, "I did not have sex with that woman!"? He got off because he said he "believed" at the time of the statement that he was not lying, because "having sex" did not include fellatio, but only coitus.
    Section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 defines personal protection as an act that is lawful. 18 USC Sections 921-930 are the codification of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 defines personal protection as an act that is lawful. 18 USC Sections 921-930 are the codification of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    And virtually every rule, policy, or sign issued by the US Government totally ignores this fact.



    TFred

  18. #18
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 defines personal protection as an act that is lawful. 18 USC Sections 921-930 are the codification of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    So you are saying that carrying to the post office is "technically" legal?

    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    Last edited by ocholsteroc; 05-09-2011 at 10:50 PM.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  19. #19
    Regular Member t33j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    King George, VA
    Posts
    1,384
    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.


    Still not sure how it makes sense in the first place.

    It's not even like the post office or The Department of XXXXX makes its own rules to get around, "Congress shall make no law..."

    or how preemption doesn't apply to the DGIF.
    Last edited by t33j; 05-09-2011 at 11:12 PM.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  20. #20
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845
    The same signs are at the "Federal" side of the Yorktown Battlefields, too. You can't carry in their museum, either. You can carry all over the battlefields, but not "inside a building where Federal Park Rangers work" like the one closest to the Yorktown Monument.

    http://www.nps.gov/nero/firearms/VA/index.htm


    I DO carry (quite often) to the OTHER side of Yorktown... Cross UNDER the Coleman Bridge to the STATE-run facility. If you live in York, James, or other nearby counties, you get in the Jamestown and Yorktown STATE facilities for FREE! Yep... You can see the big new place and the "boats" side of Jamestown free of charge if you're a local resident. Since I started Homeschooling my son, we go to both places often.

    http://www.historyisfun.org/local-residents.htm

    http://www.historyisfun.org/

    If you're a Disabled Veteran, you can also get a FREE pass from the national parks service to get in their facilities free, too. Mine is called the Golden Age (or soemthing like that) pass, but they've changed it since I got mine. You can check on the website for info...

    http://www.nps.gov/fees_passes.htm
    Last edited by MSC 45ACP; 05-09-2011 at 11:58 PM. Reason: insert another link of interest
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    So you are saying that carrying to the post office is "technically" legal?
    That's my opinion, assuming that "carrying" means lawfully carrying as defined by the state you're in.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by t33j View Post


    Still not sure how it makes sense in the first place.

    It's not even like the post office or The Department of XXXXX makes its own rules to get around, "Congress shall make no law..."

    or how preemption doesn't apply to the DGIF.
    That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".
    Question of clarification:

    In Heller, the majority opinion states on Page 54:

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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.26

    26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

    Does that not in fact mean that they are not considering the Constitutionality of these restrictions, but for the purpose of this case, are merely assuming them to be OK?

    I know the antis have taken that one paragraph as a huge victory, but I don't see that it means what they think it means...

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 05-10-2011 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Oops, left out an important word!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    634

    CTN (Coffee Through Nose)..., Dang, Peter!

    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That's absolutely true Sidestreet, but I expect things would get a little confusing if you were married to Hillary.
    Understandable..., she's had to wear the pants in the family 'cause Bill has such a problem keeping his on and zipped up, but that doesn't mean he's gotta grudge **** the rest of us!

    sidestreet

    we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Question of clarification:

    In Heller, the majority opinion states on Page 54:

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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.26

    26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

    Does that not in fact mean that they are not considering the Constitutionality of these restrictions, but for the purpose of this case, are merely assuming them to be OK?

    I know the antis have taken that one paragraph as a huge victory, but I don't see that it means what they think it means...

    TFred
    I believe that you are entirely correct. The problem I see is the distinction between how such limitations work with respect to the relationship between a citizen and his state, subject to his own state's constitution, and the relationship between a citizen and the United States. My problem with the whole incorporation of the 14th Amendment due process clause thing has been that it's sort of been reversed - instead of limiting the behavior of states in denying due process to citizens (and the Court has specifically said that it's not going to do that), it has been used to water down the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights by saying that the latitude that states have under the U.S. Constitution applies to the United States as well. I strongly object to both of those interpretations because they have the net result of the denial of the rights of citizens. Federal courts will not enforce the provision that guarantees you the right to proper procedure under your state's laws pursuant to the 14th Amendment, nor will they enforce your rights as absolute vis-a-vis the U.S. under the Bill of Rights.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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