So according to this law...

[TFred]

imported post

user wrote:

1245A Defender wrote:

...this thread is about federal buildings and such,,, but not post offices....
...

So, where does the distinction between "federal buildings and such" and "post offices" come from? How do you figure that a post office isn't a "federal building"?

See this article by Mike:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-G...rvice-enforces-gun-ban-in-public-parking-lots

TFred

 

[cb5300]

imported post

user wrote:

I'd like to see a case that analyzes 39 USC 232.1 in terms of the inconsistency with other federal law and state law, all of which I suggest takes precedence over the USPS regulations. If there's someone out there who has a lot of money and can afford to take the time, I'd like to do a declaratory judgment action against the USPS bringing up all that other stuff, as well as the Second Amendment. The plaintiff would have to be someone who wants to be able to carry in a post office public parking lot, is lawfully in a position to do so, other than the regulation, and wants the Court to clarify whether or not he has to obey the regulation.

So ball park the cost of doing this? May bethe forumcould start a fund to cover some of the cost of correcting some of these laws.

 

[Pagan]

imported post

cb5300 wrote:

user wrote:

I'd like to see a case that analyzes 39 USC 232.1 in terms of the inconsistency with other federal law and state law, all of which I suggest takes precedence over the USPS regulations. If there's someone out there who has a lot of money and can afford to take the time, I'd like to do a declaratory judgment action against the USPS bringing up all that other stuff, as well as the Second Amendment. The plaintiff would have to be someone who wants to be able to carry in a post office public parking lot, is lawfully in a position to do so, other than the regulation, and wants the Court to clarify whether or not he has to obey the regulation.

So ball park the cost of doing this? May bethe forumcould start a fund to cover some of the cost of correcting some of these laws.

I'm not really sure the laws need correcting as such. The law seems clear to me that illegal carry and use is prohibited, and lawful carry and use is legal. Kinda like if some one committed a misdemeanor while carrying, such as assult, or theft, then another charge could be laid on top of the other, to discourage carry or use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, even if not afelony status crime.

Sort of like applying a reverse "force triangle" onillegal activity.So that one is not so ready to be "in for a penny,in for pound", if that makes any sense...

 

[TFred]

imported post

Pagan wrote:

cb5300 wrote:

user wrote:

I'd like to see a case that analyzes 39 USC 232.1 in terms of the inconsistency with other federal law and state law, all of which I suggest takes precedence over the USPS regulations. If there's someone out there who has a lot of money and can afford to take the time, I'd like to do a declaratory judgment action against the USPS bringing up all that other stuff, as well as the Second Amendment. The plaintiff would have to be someone who wants to be able to carry in a post office public parking lot, is lawfully in a position to do so, other than the regulation, and wants the Court to clarify whether or not he has to obey the regulation.

So ball park the cost of doing this? May bethe forumcould start a fund to cover some of the cost of correcting some of these laws.

I'm not really sure the laws need correcting as such. The law seems clear to me that illegal carry and use is prohibited, and lawful carry and use is legal. Kinda like if some one committed a misdemeanor while carrying, such as assult, or theft, then another charge could be laid on top of the other, to discourage carry or use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, even if not afelony status crime.

Sort of like applying a reverse "force triangle" onillegal activity.So that one is not so ready to be "in for a penny,in for pound", if that makes any sense...

It might make sense, if the government officials would tell the truth. Every NPS press release and every news article reporting about the new law clearly states that nobody may legally carry a firearm into a Federal facility.

There are three possible reasons for this.

1. It's true, and nobody here in the firearms community can properly interpret the laws as written.

2. It's not true, and nobody in the Government can interpret the laws as written.

3. It's not true, and the Government folks know it's not true, but are lying about it, with the intention to inhibit behavior that they don't like, but that is not illegal.

I know which one I'm betting on, and it's a sad sate of affairs that our public "servants" have sunk to that.

It seems to me that this is the very sort of a situation that the Civil Rights Act was designed to correct.

Can we bring a class action 1983 case? The entire country is being deprived of their civil rights under the color of the law.

TFred

 

[user]

imported post

Beats the heck out of me what it would cost. I seldom do plaintiff's cases, and would ask someone like Mark Matthews to take the lead, though I'd be willing to help. I'll send him an email about this thread and see what he says.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

user wrote:

Beats the heck out of me what it would cost. I seldom do plaintiff's cases, and would ask someone like Mark Matthews to take the lead, though I'd be willing to help. I'll send him an email about this thread and see what he says.

OCDO as an entity could use something like this to further our national identity/recognition factor - maybe even the NRA would sign on at the last second.

Yata hey

 

[Pagan]

imported post

Well I'm headed to the PO today and check out their posting, if I can find it. It most certainly is not at the entrance...

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Look at what Section 101 of the act actually says:

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares
that the purpose of this title is to
provide support to Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials in their fight
against crime and violence, and it is not
the purpose of this title to place any undue
or unnecessary Federal restrictions or
burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect
to the acquisition, possession, or
use of firearms appropriate to the purpose
of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting,
personal protection, or any other lawful
activity, and that this title is not intended
to discourage or eliminate the private
ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding
citizens for lawful purposes, or
provide for the imposition by Federal
regulations of any procedures or requirements
other than those reasonably necessary
to implement and effectuate the
provisions of this title.

Link:http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

So we know that a plain reading of the act would confirm that the carrying of a firearm by a law abiding citizen for personal protection is a lawful activity and a lawful purpose under the act.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Look at what Section 101 of the act actually says:

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares
that the purpose of this title is to
provide support to Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials in their fight
against crime and violence, and it is not
the purpose of this title to place any undue
or unnecessary Federal restrictions or
burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect
to the acquisition, possession, or
use of firearms appropriate to the purpose
of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting,
personal protection, or any other lawful
activity, and that this title is not intended
to discourage or eliminate the private
ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding
citizens for lawful purposes, or
provide for the imposition by Federal
regulations of any procedures or requirements
other than those reasonably necessary
to implement and effectuate the
provisions of this title.

Link:http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

So we know that a plain reading of the act would confirm that the carrying of a firearm by a law abiding citizen for personal protection is a lawful activity and a lawful purpose under the act.

Don't read it that way at all.

What I see is a "sorry but...." statement.

They disarm us under the reasonably necessary phraseology.

Yata hey

 

[Thundar]

imported post

there is a ", or" before that phrase Grapeshot.

 

[TFred]

imported post

It's always reassuring to see that my invisible font is working!

Wed Feb 24th, 2010 10:47 pm

Also, the "reasonably necessary" phrase is immediately followed by "to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."

So that seems to mean that any exceptions to the assertion that carrying a firearm for self-defense is lawful covered by the first phrase must be for the expressed purpose of fulfilling some other requirement in that same law, not a National Park carry law written 40 years later.

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

there is a ", or" before that phrase Grapeshot.

Yep sure is, and there is the phrase "other than" preceding "reasonably necessary"which IMO excuses all the rest.

that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

IMO - the King's men have utilized the King's English not to the benefit of the subjects.

Yata hey

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Thundar wrote:

there is a ", or" before that phrase Grapeshot.

Yep sure is, and there is the phrase "other than" preceding "reasonably necessary"which IMO excuses all the rest.

that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

IMO - the King's men have utilized the King's English not to the benefit of the subjects.

Yata hey

Aye, matey. But, if you go back even earlier in the paragraph you will read, "to
provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence".

Now, "law abiding citizen" and "crime" are mutually exclusive terms... IOW, fighting crime does not involve any law abiding citizens, therefore law abiding citizens are excluded from the regulation.

Only criminals are forbidden to carry :^).

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Thundar wrote:

there is a ", or" before that phrase Grapeshot.

Yep sure is, and there is the phrase "other than" preceding "reasonably necessary"which IMO excuses all the rest.

that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

IMO - the King's men have utilized the King's English not to the benefit of the subjects.

Yata hey

Aye, matey. But, if you go back even earlier in the paragraph you will read, "to
provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence".

Now, "law abiding citizen" and "crime" are mutually exclusive terms... IOW, fighting crime does not involve any law abiding citizens, therefore law abiding citizens are excluded from the regulation.

Only criminals are forbidden to carry :^).

Best tie a tail on that if you expect it to fly.

I never bet against another's game (your definitions/interpertations) so will only say that "law abiding citizens" are such only until they have committed a "crime." Both the LE agents and I think that you will have committed a crime by their interpretation when you cross that line armed.

Might you win in court? Possibly, but it will be very expensive and we would both hate to see you lose. :?

Yata hey

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Thundar wrote:

there is a ", or" before that phrase Grapeshot.

Yep sure is, and there is the phrase "other than" preceding "reasonably necessary"which IMO excuses all the rest.

that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

IMO - the King's men have utilized the King's English not to the benefit of the subjects.

Yata hey

Aye, matey. But, if you go back even earlier in the paragraph you will read, "to
provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence".

Now, "law abiding citizen" and "crime" are mutually exclusive terms... IOW, fighting crime does not involve any law abiding citizens, therefore law abiding citizens are excluded from the regulation.

Only criminals are forbidden to carry :^).

Best tie a tail on that if you expect it to fly.

I never bet against another's game (your definitions/interpertations) so will only say that "law abiding citizens" are such only until they have committed a "crime." Both the LE agents and I think that you will have committed a crime by their interpretation when you cross that line armed.

Might you win in court? Possibly, but it will be very expensive and we would both hate to see you lose. :?

Yata hey

Well, I'd say everyone has standing in this case, without crossing that line. We should get together, perhaps VCDL and the NRA, and challenge the law. It is at best unconstitutionally vague..... No need to chance going to jail.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Well, I'd say everyone has standing in this case, without crossing that line. We should get together, perhaps VCDL and the NRA, and challenge the law. It is at best unconstitutionally vague..... No need to chance going to jail.

Put your case/argument together and send it to PVC for consideration.

The NPS rule change was initiated by action directly attributed to VCDL.

Yata hey

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

Well, I'd say everyone has standing in this case, without crossing that line. We should get together, perhaps VCDL and the NRA, and challenge the law. It is at best unconstitutionally vague..... No need to chance going to jail.

Put your case/argument together and send it to PVC for consideration.

The NPS rule change was initiated by action directly attributed to VCDL.

Yata hey

I agree!
The NRA just road VCDL's coat tail in. Challanging this type of law is difficult at best...and expensive. Get PVC's opinion before starting it or you may just find you grabbed a skunk by the snout and can't let go.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

Well, I'd say everyone has standing in this case, without crossing that line. We should get together, perhaps VCDL and the NRA, and challenge the law. It is at best unconstitutionally vague..... No need to chance going to jail.

Put your case/argument together and send it to PVC for consideration.

The NPS rule change was initiated by action directly attributed to VCDL.

Yata hey

I agree!
The NRA just road VCDL's coat tail in. Challanging this type of law is difficult at best...and expensive. Get PVC's opinion before starting it or you may just find you grabbed a skunk by the snout and can't let go.

From personal experience :^)? This law seems soooo ready to get challenged.... Or should I better say, "law"...?

 

[Fenris]

imported post

What about this part of the code?

TITLE 18 -- CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I -- CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 -- FIREARMS
Sec. 930.
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.

 

[TFred]

imported post

Fenris wrote:

What about this part of the code?

TITLE 18 -- CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I -- CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 -- FIREARMS
Sec. 930.
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.

I don't recall any courts holding trial or having offices in any National Park visitor centers!

TFred