• 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.

US Attorney answer finally arrived today

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
I emailed them in Sept 2008, I got my reply at 10:15am 2/6/2012

This office is not allowed to provide legal advice or a legal interpretation for private citizens. The King County Bar Association or the UW Law School or Seattle University Law School may be able to assist you.

Emily Langlie
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Attorney's Office - Western District of Washington
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
I emailed them in Sept 2008, I got my reply at 10:15am 2/6/2012

This office is not allowed to provide legal advice or a legal interpretation for private citizens. The King County Bar Association or the UW Law School or Seattle University Law School may be able to assist you.

Emily Langlie
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Attorney's Office - Western District of Washington

Of course we all understand that they only respond to requests for opinions from legislators and others in official capacity. I can understand why they wouldn't do this.....can you imagine what would happen if they had to respond to individual citizen requests on any points of law? It would take them, like, two years to answer...... oh, wait...it did. :banghead:
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Of course we all understand that they only respond to requests for opinions from legislators and others in official capacity. I can understand why they wouldn't do this.....can you imagine what would happen if they had to respond to individual citizen requests on any points of law? It would take them, like, two years to answer...... oh, wait...it did. :banghead:

Four.

"Responsive and transparent..." I love it.

Hey, he did get a response and it was perfectly clear. The motto doesn't say a thing about quick. :p;)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
3.5 years for the same response I got when I called them on the phone....lol....

We elected the attorney general not the "officials" I think they should answer us too.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
Finally found my question......


I am requesting guidance concerning information provided in TITLE 18 USC §930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in federal facilities and TITLE 39 CFR §232.1 - Conduct on postal property as to persons exempted and possible conflicts within.

All references to armed persons shall represent persons not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms under federal, state or local laws and who are authorized, licensed or permitted to carry firearms for any lawful purpose in the state of Washington. The scope of this inquiry is not intended to include areas of federal facilities considered sterile; whereupon, weapon screening and armed security or police are provided.

Specifically, I request the following questions to be addressed:

Is self-defense considered "other lawful purpose" under 18 USC §930(d)(3)?

Is the public access area of a postal facility considered a federal facility?

Would a person exempted under 18 USC §930(d)(3) still be subject to prosecution under 39 CFR §232.1(l)? If so, is the exemption recognized in 18 USC §930(d)(3) rendered inoperable under any other provisions of federal code?

Under 39 CFR §232.1(l) the only exemption is "except for official purposes". What constitutes "official purposes"? Is the transaction of normal business in the public area of such facility an "official purpose"? If not, would a person licensed or authorized to carry firearms in the course of their business or duties be subject to prosecution if armed while conducting normal business in the public area of such facility if the transaction is not related to their business or duties?

39 CFR §232.1(l) does not specify buildings but "postal property". Does this prohibit the possession of firearms within the approach, collection or parking areas accessible to the public located outside of the buildings?

Forty-eight states allow the carrying of concealed firearms for personal protection, thirty-seven of which are "shall-issue" states. Many states do not require licensure to carry firearms for self-defense as long as the firearms are not concealed. Concealed or open, millions of citizens legally carry firearms for personal defense in the normal course of their daily affairs. Clearly, 18 USC § 930(d)(3) does provide exemption for "other lawful purposes".

It is my intention to share the information on these matters with other individuals and groups to educate people exercising this right to defend themselves and their families. Putting into practice a natural right protected by our Constitution should not place any person in fear of arrest or prosecution.

I trust your opinion will help clarify this matter and provide guidance to prevent well- intentioned persons from becoming entangled in a legal situation that they understood to be constitutionally protected and lawful conduct.
 

Lammo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
580
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
3.5 years for the same response I got when I called them on the phone....lol....

We elected the attorney general not the "officials" I think they should answer us too.

Not picking on you but I think you are confusing the elected WA AG (and future governor) with the appointed US Attorney. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand you here.
 
Top