• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

peter nap

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.

[video=vimeo;23453184]http://vimeo.com/23453184[/video]
 
user

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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. ..."
Click to expand...

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:
peter nap

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
What I was expecting her to say was that you couldn't have a gun on the property. She blindsided me.:lol:
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
user said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where's our "Rosa Parks?"

TFred
 
ocholsteroc

ocholsteroc

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,317
Location
Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
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.
Click to expand...


Loophole? :) ?????? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

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:
user

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
xdm guy said:
One would need very deep pockets for that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

cyras21

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
152
Location
Stepehens City, VA
user said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
S

sidestreet

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
673
Location
, ,
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.
 
peter nap

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
sidestreet said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely true Sidestreet, but I expect things would get a little confusing if you were married to Hillary.:lol:
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
user said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocholsteroc

ocholsteroc

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,317
Location
Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
Thundar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
t33j

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
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.
Click to expand...
:uhoh:

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:
MSC 45ACP

MSC 45ACP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,840
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top