-
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.
-
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.
So according to this law...
- Thread starter Pagan
- Start date
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
OK. To file suit, arrange for court reporters, service of process, and other incidentals would require a couple thousand dollars right up front. Legal fees could run anywhere from around ten thousand to thirty thousand, depending on how much of a fight the feds put up. (I had a case against Safeway, once, in which the legal fees on each side ran upwards of seventy thousand dollars.)
There is a potential good side of that, however, in that there are a couple of ways it may be possible to recover legal fees and costs if we win. Moreover, if this were seen as a contest of national implications (which is how I see it), it may be possible to get folks on board from all over. The one thing I worry about is getting what I see as the real winnable case lost in the political battle over the Second Amendment and "gun rights".
OK. To file suit, arrange for court reporters, service of process, and other incidentals would require a couple thousand dollars right up front. Legal fees could run anywhere from around ten thousand to thirty thousand, depending on how much of a fight the feds put up. (I had a case against Safeway, once, in which the legal fees on each side ran upwards of seventy thousand dollars.)
There is a potential good side of that, however, in that there are a couple of ways it may be possible to recover legal fees and costs if we win. Moreover, if this were seen as a contest of national implications (which is how I see it), it may be possible to get folks on board from all over. The one thing I worry about is getting what I see as the real winnable case lost in the political battle over the Second Amendment and "gun rights".
imported post
user wrote:
Yata hey
user wrote:
So besides you and Neplusultra , it would be good to have Warren Buffet on board first. :?
Yata hey
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
user wrote:
ETA: Orr.... maybe we could find a friendly Congress Critter to do our askin' for us?
If there is no legal basis, they just might read the writing on the wall, and adjust their policy.
TFred
user wrote:
I really wonder what would happen if we had someone with big pockets (so they knew we were serious and willing fight a "blow them off" answer) officially ask them the simple question, "on what basis do you assert that carrying a firearm for self-defense is an 'unlawful purpose?'"
ETA: Orr.... maybe we could find a friendly Congress Critter to do our askin' for us?
If there is no legal basis, they just might read the writing on the wall, and adjust their policy.
TFred
2a4all
Regular Member
imported post
TFred wrote:
"I really wonder what would happen if we had someone with big pockets (so they knew we were serious and willing fight a "blow them off" answer) officially ask them the simple question, "on what basis do you assert that carrying a firearm for self-defense is an 'unlawful purpose?'"
ETA: Orr.... maybe we could find a friendly Congress Critter to do our askin' for us?
If there is no legal basis, they just might read the writing on the wall, and adjust their policy."
TFred
We had a "friendly Congrees Critter", Rob Wittman, as our guest at the last Tidewater OCDO, who had an extended conversation with PVC. :idea:
TFred wrote:
"I really wonder what would happen if we had someone with big pockets (so they knew we were serious and willing fight a "blow them off" answer) officially ask them the simple question, "on what basis do you assert that carrying a firearm for self-defense is an 'unlawful purpose?'"
ETA: Orr.... maybe we could find a friendly Congress Critter to do our askin' for us?
If there is no legal basis, they just might read the writing on the wall, and adjust their policy."
TFred
We had a "friendly Congrees Critter", Rob Wittman, as our guest at the last Tidewater OCDO, who had an extended conversation with PVC. :idea:
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
2a4all wrote:
TFred
2a4all wrote:
Yeah, he's "my critter" too. I've never met him, but from what I have seen, he seems pretty friendly for a critter.
TFred
Armed
Regular Member
imported post
user wrote:
I'd be willing to contribute to the "war chest" if one were to be started....
user wrote:
I'd be willing to contribute to the "war chest" if one were to be started....
2a4all
Regular Member
imported post
TFred wrote:
TFred wrote:
It occurred to me that ultimately, the question would be put to the Attorney General for his opinion.2a4all wrote:Yeah, he's "my critter" too. I've never met him, but from what I have seen, he seems pretty friendly for a critter.
TFred
imported post
2a4all wrote:
Eric_Holder is no friend of mine and is definitely no Ken Cuccenelli.
Yata hey
2a4all wrote:
Aaah, no thank you, seriously.TFred wrote:It occurred to me that ultimately, the question would be put to the Attorney General for his opinion.2a4all wrote:Yeah, he's "my critter" too. I've never met him, but from what I have seen, he seems pretty friendly for a critter.
TFred
Eric_Holder is no friend of mine and is definitely no Ken Cuccenelli.
Yata hey
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
2a4all wrote:
2a4all wrote:
Um, yeah, Mr. Holder is going to get right on that:shock:
joeamt
Campaign Veteran
imported post
livitup wrote:
I know i have been blasted by my words on this before:
I have open carried at the Dumfries postoffice on several occasions, and on more than one occasion, the lady behind the counter commented on how "nice" my gun was.
livitup wrote:
I know i have been blasted by my words on this before:
I have open carried at the Dumfries postoffice on several occasions, and on more than one occasion, the lady behind the counter commented on how "nice" my gun was.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
This is the first article of any kind that I have seen addressing the legality of "otherwise lawful" carry inside a National Park visitor center, etc.
It covers both the posted/sign aspect as well as the "other lawful purpose" aspect.
Cites the Post Office case that for some unfathomable reason declared that a requirement to be posted doesn't really mean that it has to be posted, and notes that there is no Federal case ruling on whether "lawful purpose" covers self-defense.
I wonder if the author is aware of the text in the GCA of 1968 that specifically labels carry for self-defense as a lawful purpose?
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d26-Why-you-should-not-carry-a-weapon-into-the-Kennesaw-Mountain-visitor-center
TFred
This is the first article of any kind that I have seen addressing the legality of "otherwise lawful" carry inside a National Park visitor center, etc.
It covers both the posted/sign aspect as well as the "other lawful purpose" aspect.
Cites the Post Office case that for some unfathomable reason declared that a requirement to be posted doesn't really mean that it has to be posted, and notes that there is no Federal case ruling on whether "lawful purpose" covers self-defense.
I wonder if the author is aware of the text in the GCA of 1968 that specifically labels carry for self-defense as a lawful purpose?
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d26-Why-you-should-not-carry-a-weapon-into-the-Kennesaw-Mountain-visitor-center
TFred
Pagan
Regular Member
imported post
Well all of this interpretation of this and that, is enough to make me wanna puke! The law clearly says lawfull carry is not prohibited, in federal facilities, except for court houses, this non-sense has got to end!
Well all of this interpretation of this and that, is enough to make me wanna puke! The law clearly says lawfull carry is not prohibited, in federal facilities, except for court houses, this non-sense has got to end!
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
joeamt wrote:
joeamt wrote:
1+
kennys
Regular Member
imported post
Ok, I have heard opinion for post office, and federal facility. What about Arlington National Cemetery? Or is that considered an extension of a military base? At the administration building I looked and had seen nothing posted.
Ok, I have heard opinion for post office, and federal facility. What about Arlington National Cemetery? Or is that considered an extension of a military base? At the administration building I looked and had seen nothing posted.
kennys
Regular Member
imported post
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/laws/ From the way batf has it on their web site as currant, I would seem to think it is up to date.I believe someone had questioned this earlier. I haven't read through all the documents yet for fine print that was maybe missed.
Not saying there isn't but from limited federal facilities I have ever been, I have not seen any posting. According to the following.
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(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.
Could this be there as an allusion? Not posted because postingnot legal, but ill information from authorities leads you to believe it is legal hens the "unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be. " as a tool of question to the issue and an undue fear of prosecution.
http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/laws/ From the way batf has it on their web site as currant, I would seem to think it is up to date.I believe someone had questioned this earlier. I haven't read through all the documents yet for fine print that was maybe missed.
Not saying there isn't but from limited federal facilities I have ever been, I have not seen any posting. According to the following.
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(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.
Could this be there as an allusion? Not posted because postingnot legal, but ill information from authorities leads you to believe it is legal hens the "unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be. " as a tool of question to the issue and an undue fear of prosecution.
OC-Glock19
Founder's Club Member
imported post
kennys wrote:
Here is a link the the Arlington Cemetery visitor rules: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/553-22-visitors-arlington-cemetery-19747782
I searched and could find no prohibition of weapons of any kind. That doesn't mean that they don't prohibit them, but it's not listed in their official rules web site.
kennys wrote:
Here is a link the the Arlington Cemetery visitor rules: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/553-22-visitors-arlington-cemetery-19747782
I searched and could find no prohibition of weapons of any kind. That doesn't mean that they don't prohibit them, but it's not listed in their official rules web site.
kennys
Regular Member
imported post
Here is a link from another board that sheds a new light as for the question of post office carry http://www.tfaonline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2349
Most of what I have seen looks correct, however I have not had the opportunity to pick it apart and verify every little thing. Just to see what the response would be if any, I am interested in what the Post Master General would have to say if he was questioned about his rules on weapons as Federal Law supersedes.
I would bet if there was any known court losses on the federal facility issue, that something in the criteria as outlined in the above link had not been met.
Here is a link from another board that sheds a new light as for the question of post office carry http://www.tfaonline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2349
Most of what I have seen looks correct, however I have not had the opportunity to pick it apart and verify every little thing. Just to see what the response would be if any, I am interested in what the Post Master General would have to say if he was questioned about his rules on weapons as Federal Law supersedes.
I would bet if there was any known court losses on the federal facility issue, that something in the criteria as outlined in the above link had not been met.