Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Carry on Military Installations.

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567

    Lightbulb Carry on Military Installations.

    It's well known, and I've posted threads here before about it, that we cannot carry on military installations. I could never figure out why these policies existed. I've complained on critiques and even talked to commanders myself about the firearm policies of military bases. The answers I always got were, "well it's a Wing policy, you can't change it." After not being happy with that I've always been searching and I've finally found it. How I've never found this before I don't know.

    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.
    Though I know we will probably never get TRUE carry on federal installations, my beef is that I can't even leave a gun in my car for self defense on the way home. I've passed murder scenes at midnight driving home on swing shift and it really bothers me that my government who arms me to protect them doesn't allow me to be armed to protect myself. It's like when I leave the gate they say "good luck." When I brought this issue to my Group Commander using that example he said, "sounds like you should move! get some buddies together and move...." He was being serious. This really bothered me, because I'm stationed here. Where can I move other than a few blocks down? Where can I move where there is a perfect world and no one commits crime?

    Can anyone think of a reason WHY self defense while driving home would not be considered a lawful purpose allowed under subsection (3)? If it is indeed a lawful purpose, as I see it is, does the military have the authority to outlaw something that is lawful under U.S. CODE when referring to Federal Facilities?

    Does "part thereof" in the definition of facility include an entire base? Or just the buildings on the base?



    On a side note:
    It isn't like the government/military doesn't care about my life. It is that they have gone out of their way to make laws and regulations that put me in danger on a daily basis. How in the world did this legislation get passed? What American would have allowed this to happen?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  2. #2
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,990
    We can only OC in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even then the ROE is usually more restrictive than here in WA.
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  3. #3
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Can anyone think of a reason WHY self defense while driving home would not be considered a lawful purpose allowed under subsection (3)?
    The following applies to anywhere 18 USC 930 applies....

    As to the exception in 930(d)(3) for "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes," please be aware that there is no federal case discussing the meaning of this specific exception to the law. 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.


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    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.
    It's such bull crap man, how can anyone say that self defense is not a lawful purpose? It's sad that to get that cleared up one would have to "test" it in court. What can we do, if anything, to fix this?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  5. #5
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    It's such bull crap man, how can anyone say that self defense is not a lawful purpose? It's sad that to get that cleared up one would have to "test" it in court. What can we do, if anything, to fix this?
    There is a case in court right now (Bonidy-v-USPS) dealing with carry in the Post Office. Hopefully the attorney with get this issue cleared up for us.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38725771/B...USPS-Complaint

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...-moves-to.html

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...-over-yet.html
    Last edited by Bill Starks; 08-14-2011 at 08:56 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    ... I've passed murder scenes at midnight driving home on swing shift and it really bothers me that my government who arms me to protect them doesn't allow me to be armed to protect myself. It's like when I leave the gate they say "good luck."...
    I feel your pain. I work for Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport News, Virginia. I work the night shift at a building outside the actual shipyard. We have a parking lot that has unattended gates. There is a total of 6 gates to the parking lot. Two at the front of the building are open 24/7/365. Only 2 of the other 4 gates are open for a couple hour at a time during the day (morning, noon and afternoon) due to break ins in the lot during the day. They stole the rear tires off of one of my departments company cars during a weekend and they left the rear end sitting on cinder blocks. It is the highest crime area in the city and there have been murders accross the streets on all 4 sides of the property. A teen knocked on his teenage girlfriends door at about 5 in the afternoon and shot here in the face and killed when she answered (I watched some police and cars accross the street from a second floor window). Two guys were accosted for being on the "wrong street" about 1 AM. One guy didn't run fast enough and was shot in the back and killed (saw the police cars and fire rescue as I walked to my truck to go home. Someone on a bicycle was shot while riding (again saw the police cars when I left for the night). A guy working down stairs left early for the day and after exiting the gate didn't make it 100 yards before he wound up between a car and scooter. Someone shot from the scooter at the other car or vice versa. Bullit went through the window of the guys car and lodged in the dash board. When I got to work a short while later I could see the WAVY 10 news helo down the street in the other direction diverted from the nearby interstate traffic reports. Someone had chased someone else through an appartment complex (same one the girl was killed at) shooting at them in a playground with children present that was also across the street from an elementry school.

    On and on and on and on. Just a few of the things that have happened across the street and within a few blocks of the property. I've also had agressive pan handlers and people looking to get rides on my way home at night (anywhere between 1 AM and 5 AM) when I stop at traffic lights. Some have even tried to open my door while I have been stopped at the lights.

    Company policy is "No firearms in personal vehicles while parked on company property". You do what you gots to do to earn a livin and hope you stay alive until they change the laws that allow workers to protect themselves.
    Last edited by mobeewan; 08-15-2011 at 12:36 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623
    Accidently double posted while trying to edit.
    Last edited by mobeewan; 08-15-2011 at 12:35 AM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Some States have laws that disallow employers from forbidding firearms in your car. This is logical since your car is an extension of your home. By allowing you to bring it onto their property, they should be tacitly allowing you to have anything within it that you would be allowed to have in your home.

    I take it that VA does not have such a law?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623
    Not for lack of trying. Something about owners property rights.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by mobeewan View Post

    Company policy is no firearms in vehicles while parked on company property. You do what you gots to do to earn a livin and hope you stay lucky.
    Oh...man...it's a company policy....carry at least in your vehicle, you're crazy if you don't.

    I work on a government installation with 18 year old drones who don't even know a thing about law armed to the teeth guarding the gate. If you ask 10 of them about the policy regarding firearms on an Air Force base you will receive 10 different answers. They search cars at random. They ask, "do you consent to a vehicle search?" If you say no, you lose your driving privileges on the base.

    If I was in your shoes I'd be packing heat. You're crazy for not! (unless the ship building facility searches your car with 18 year olds armed with 40mm grenade launchers and has dogs climb all over it sniffing for god knows what)
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623
    Too old to get caught breaking company rules. I've got 31 years and a pension to look forward to. No wife and no kids. Just my dad to worry about and he is 79, but I have a younger brother to look out for him too and I carry a lot of insurance. $50,000 company provided, $250,000 supplemental life I pay for and about $500,000 accidental I pay for all furnished through my benefits. Too old to be looking for another job without a pension.

    I used to work inside the yard at night and had to walk a few blocks to my vehicle. At least now I only have to go a few yards to my vehicle once I leave the building.

    I do carry a spyderco and I've learned to keep pretty good situational awareness and have thought of improvised weapons. Ever stop to get gas at night and have someone walk up to you wanting money. If I'm on my way home and stop for gas I've usually got my left hand in my pocket holding a Bic lighter while pump gas. If someone were to pull a weapon or gun they would get a pretty nasty surprise.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by mobeewan View Post
    Not for lack of trying. Something about owners property rights.
    Property rights (which can be respected while allowing them to refuse access to their property with firearms) should not be an issue. If they allow your car, an extension of your home, they must allow whatever is lawfully within that extension of your home. If they don't want guns on their property, then they would simply not allow parking.

    Another analogy would be rental property. When someone grants you use of property they own, the law can place restrictions that they place on your use of the property. When a landlord rents you a home, in most States, you, not he, have the right to "enjoy" the property, to include exercising your second amendment rights. If he doesn't want you to have a gun on that property, he should not rent it to you.

    If an employer does not want you to have a gun in your car, an extension of your home, on his premises, he should not allow the car on his premises.

    Property rights is not the reason that VA law does not protect your right to have a gun in your car--even on someone else's property. It is either a smokescreen or a demonstration of lack of understanding of the concept of rights.

Posting Permissions

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