Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Illegal Sign at National Parks Location?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    87

    Illegal Sign at National Parks Location?

    I was visiting Munising and the pictured rocks area a few weeks back and found a firearms prohibited sign at the Munising Falls Interpretive Center (906-387-4310, 1505 Sand Point Road, across from Munising Memorial Hospital). This is a National Parks Service visitor center. (http://www.nps.gov/piro/planyourvisi...torcenters.htm)

    I did not think this would be legal. Would anybody like to share some insight?


    Last edited by wolverine1856; 06-19-2011 at 10:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    If federal employees regularly work in their then they can still ban them from that building.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    87
    TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I--CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
    Sec. 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.

    (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 or attempts to kill 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, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

    (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 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 2\1/2\ 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.

    (Added Pub. L. 100-690, title VI, Sec. 6215(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101-647, title XXII, Sec. 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 103-322, title VI, Sec. 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec. 603(t), (u), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506.)




    So if I read this correctly I would be exempt due to the bolded section?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Greyh Seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    59
    Hold on a sec...so you're telling me that the Federal law that prohibits firearms in Federal buildings has an exception for legal carry?

  5. #5
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...71/349/597865/

    We affirm a district court's denial of a motion for acquittal unless the evidence, when "'viewed in the light most favorable to the government, could not have persuaded any trier of fact of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. Hernandez, 218 F.3d 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2000), (quoting United States v. Paradis, 802 F.2d 553, 559 (1st Cir. 1986)), cert. denied 531 U.S. 1103 (2001). We find that there was sufficient evidence in this case for a jury to have found that Murray violated the statute beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the appellant believed that he was not violating the prohibition against possessing dangerous weapons in a federal building when he entered the lobby of the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building, he was clearly and immediately informed of the policy by the security personnel when he showed them the pistol. A jury could reasonably conclude that his conduct from that point forward was a knowing possession of a dangerous weapon in a federal building. Given that there was a legitimate question for the jury at least on this point, we need not consider whether the jury could reasonably have found that Murray violated the statute simply by bringing the pistol into the lobby, before he was informed of the policy against it -- a conclusion arguably supported because of the frequency with which he visited the building and had previously encountered the notices announcing the prohibition. A judgment of acquittal was thus properly denied and the question was correctly submitted to the jury.

    Footnotes:

    The statute excepts law enforcement officers, military personnel, and those lawfully carrying weapons incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. 18 U.S.C. § 930(d). Murray does not fit any of the exceptions.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Greyh Seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    59
    Has anyone ever tested the constitutionality of this law?

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    They use policy a lot in the opinion, so is it a policy or a law?? What was the conviction? Contempt?? Never mind I read the decision. More to the case than just going in with a holstered handgun.
    Last edited by Venator; 06-20-2011 at 03:19 PM.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Greyh Seer View Post
    Hold on a sec...so you're telling me that the Federal law that prohibits firearms in Federal buildings has an exception for legal carry?
    Arguably....Yep... but NavyLCDR's point above is well taken.

    In regards to federal property that also happens to be a post office, there is another law that comes into play: 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). Although not applicable to the OP's question, it would most likely be the one that most of us here are likely to encounter.

    Attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation tried taking on the US Postal Service's ban on any firearm on USPS property. The challenge was on behalf of Debbie and Tab Bonidy of Avon, Colorado and the National Association for Gun Rights. (Bonidy et al v. USPS et al)
    However, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, filed December 6, 2010, was granted but the plaintiffs could have filed an amended complaint by April 11, 2011... which I don't believe they did. Not sure, though.

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/col...v02408/122068/

    The most interesting aspect of a decision would have been the treatment of the exemption clauses in the respective statutes (government buildings in 18 U.S.C. 930(d)(3) and post offices specifically in 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l)); the latter of which is far more narrow ("official purposes"), and the former which ARGUABLY allows a licensed individual to carry ("incident to hunting or other lawful purposes").
    Last edited by DrTodd; 06-20-2011 at 03:26 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    If you go to Isle Royale, unless by PRIVATE conveyance (eg "boat"), don't plan on bringing your firearm.

    Federal law also prohibits firearms aboard Federally owned vessels servicing Isle Royale and restricts firearms aboard concession vessels servicing Isle Royale; those vessels and boarding areas are marked with signs. Refer to 18 U.S.C. § 2277 Explosives and dangerous weapons aboard vessels. (see below)


    TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    PART I--CRIMES

    CHAPTER 111--SHIPPING

    Sec. 2277. Explosives or dangerous weapons aboard vessels

    (a) Whoever brings, carries, or possesses any dangerous weapon,
    instrument, or device, or any dynamite, nitroglycerin, or other
    explosive article or compound on board of any vessel registered,
    enrolled, or licensed under the laws of the United States, or any vessel
    purchased, requisitioned, chartered, or taken over by the United States
    pursuant to the provisions of Act June 6, 1941, ch. 174, 55 Stat. 242,
    as amended, without previously obtaining the permission of the owner or
    the master of such vessel; or
    Whoever brings, carries, or possesses any such weapon or explosive
    on board of any vessel in the possession and under the control of the
    United States or which has been seized and forfeited by the United
    States or upon which a guard has been placed by the United States
    pursuant to the provisions of section 191 of Title 50, without
    previously obtaining the permission of the captain of the port in which
    such vessel is located, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
    not more than one year, or both.
    (b) This section shall not apply to the personnel of the Armed
    Forces of the United States or to officers or employees of the United
    States or of a State or of a political subdivision thereof, while acting
    in the performance of their duties, who are authorized by law or by
    rules or regulations to own or possess any such weapon or explosive.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 804; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
    Sec. 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


    Historical and Revision Notes

    Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Secs. 503, 504 (Dec. 31, 1941,
    ch. 642, Secs. 1, 2, 55 Stat. 876).
    Section consolidates sections 503 and 504 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940
    ed.
    Words ``This section'' were substituted in subsection (b) for the
    words ``The provisions of sections 503, 504 of this title''.
    Minor changes were made in phraseology.

    References in Text

    Act June 6, 1941, ch. 174, 55 Stat. 242, as amended, referred to in
    subsec. (a), expired July 1, 1953. For provisions covering the subject
    matter of that Act, see sections 196 to 198 of Title 50, War and
    National Defense.


    Amendments

    1994--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ``fined under this
    title'' for ``fined not more than $1,000'' in second par.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  10. #10
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    TITLE 18 CHAPTER 44 FIREARMS
    Sec. 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... in a Federal facility... 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... such firearm... in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

    (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.

    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm 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).

    (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously...
    So they have to tell people that firearms are prohibited,
    and especially prohibited if you intend to commit a crime,
    but they don't have to tell about the exceptions,
    one of which is "hunting or other lawful purposes",
    but under e2, that exception is NOT exempt from punishment.


    So carrying is legal, but they're able to punish you for it.
    A possible felony conviction for a non-crime.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 06-20-2011 at 04:50 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    135

    NPS firearms

    National Park Service Press Release
    For Immediate Release:
    February 18, 2010
    Contact(s): David Barna, (202) 208-6843


    New Firearms Law Takes Effect Monday - National parks now subject to state and local firearms laws

    WASHINGTON – A change in federal law effective Monday, February 22, allows firearms in many national parks. People who can legally possess firearms under federal and state law can now possess those firearms in the national parks in that state. The new law (Sec. 512 of P.L. 111-24) was passed by Congress and signed last May by the President.

    Prior to February 22, firearms have generally been prohibited in national parks – except in some Alaska parks and those parks that allow hunting.

    State and local firearms laws vary. Visitors who would like to bring a firearm with them to a national park need to understand and comply with the applicable laws. More than 30 national parks are located in more than one state, so visitors need to know where they are in those parks and which state’s law applies.

    “For nearly 100 years, the mission of the National Park Service has been to protect and preserve the parks and to help all visitors enjoy them,” National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said. “We will administer this law as we do all others – fairly and consistently.”

    Federal law continues to prohibit the possession of firearms in designated “federal facilities” in national parks, for example, visitor centers, offices, or maintenance buildings. These places are posted with “firearms prohibited” signs at public entrances. The new law also does not change prohibitions on the use of firearms in national parks and does not change hunting regulations.

    Park websites have been updated to include links to state firearms laws to help visitors understand the law and plan accordingly.

    Sec. 512 of P.L. 111-24, an amendment to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, also directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to follow state and local firearms laws in national wildlife refuges.

  12. #12
    Regular Member StingMP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Madison Hts-Carry M&P9mm CPL/NRA mem, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    101
    Here is the advice from NSSF last year about ranger stations and buildings at National Parks

    http://nssfinsights.s3.amazonaws.com/040810.mp3
    "Reason can never be popular. Passions and feelings can become popular, but reason will always remain the sole property of a few eminent individuals."
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Posting Permissions

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