• 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.

Don't OC on Federal Property

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,310
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
Chief US District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson amendment 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) and extended General Order 13-54-1 to include standing on Federal Property with weapons and not just entering buildings with weapons on March 2, 2015.
This is "our" Government setting up the protesters that they know are going to be with weapons on March 6th to violate a newly amended Federal law and be subject to arrest and prosecution. Furthermore, it is even more apparent that it is retaliatory by the Government since they only changed general order 13-54-1 specifically for Yakima, Richland and Spokane. This is an intentional and malicious act against the people.

Link to the order

http://1.usa.gov/1wZHbuZ

<edit> fixed the date to March 6th.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Courts and judges can now do the business of Congress by creating laws?

She (the judge) would seem to presume to extend her authority beyond normal expectations.

Even the secret service does not throw so wide a blanket when the POTUS comes to town.

Clearly the action this judge has initiated is designed to be a punji pit to injure the unwary.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,925
Location
North Carolina
Hasn't there already been a SCOTUS ruling on possession of a firearm on postal property(not inside buildings)?

Sorry I guess not a SCOTUS ruling but a 10th circuit. FUQ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ates-the-second-amendment-at-the-post-office/

In the District Court, Judge Richard Matsch upheld the postal ban for the post office lobby (where patrons access their mail boxes), ruling it to be among Heller’s “sensitive places.” He ruled the gun ban unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bonidy and the parking lot at the Avon Post Office.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Hasn't there already been a SCOTUS ruling on possession of a firearm on postal property(not inside buildings)?

Sorry I guess not a SCOTUS ruling but a 10th circuit. FUQ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ates-the-second-amendment-at-the-post-office/

In the District Court, Judge Richard Matsch upheld the postal ban for the post office lobby (where patrons access their mail boxes), ruling it to be among Heller’s “sensitive places.” He ruled the gun ban unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bonidy and the parking lot at the Avon Post Office.

I acknowledge that - it was a decision in a court case.

What we are talking about here was not involved in litigation, but was rather a preemptive action, initiated to make criminals of the otherwise innocent AND it was apparently made w/o public disclosure. Equally curious is that it does not apply to the entire state, but only select municipalities. Really? Are these municipalities federal property? (extreme sarcasm)

From where does the judge get that authority?
 
Last edited:

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
"Standing on Federal Property" - how long before somebody interprets that to mean National Forests and Parks as well?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
"Standing on Federal Property" - how long before somebody interprets that to mean National Forests and Parks as well?

Or streets and highways built with federal funds. All such "grants" generally come with strings attached.

Or retail establishments that sell products involved in interstate commerce.
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Chief US District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson amendment 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) and extended General Order 13-54-1 to include standing on Federal Property with weapons and not just entering buildings with weapons on March 2, 2015.
This is "our" Government setting up the protesters that they know are going to be with weapons on March 7th to violate a newly amended Federal law and be subject to arrest and prosecution. Furthermore, it is even more apparent that it is retaliatory by the Government since they only changed general order 13-54-1 specifically for Yakima, Richland and Spokane. This is an intentional and malicious act against the people.

Link to the order

http://1.usa.gov/1wZHbuZ


WELL DONE Bill! Thanks for posting that.

‘Astroturf’ versus real grassroots in Evergreen State

http://www.examiner.com/article/astroturf-versus-real-grassroots-evergreen-state
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Look, the federal court does NOT control the building property. That piece of property is owned and controlled by the GSA, not the court.

http://www.spokanecounty.org/pubpadal/ParcelSummary.aspx

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/184779/fileName/Building_Fact_Sheet_Thomas_S_Foley_USCH_v4.action

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104869

You may be right, but I don't see the evidence that supports your unspoken contention.

Which agency owns the buildings and property is not the sole standard.

What are the lease terms, applicable rules, laws, agreements, and other legal means by which (in this case) the court can introduce something that effects us?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,842
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You may be right, but I don't see the evidence that supports your unspoken contention.

Which agency owns the buildings and property is not the sole standard.

What are the lease terms, applicable rules, laws, agreements, and other legal means by which (in this case) the court can introduce something that effects us?
The lease/agreement between the court and the GSA should be readily available through FOIA.

What I posted shows that the building and grounds are under GSA control.

If the guy violated federal law the FBI would not have cut him loose.

Also, today it appears that Homeland security did the harassing, not the Marshal Service. The Marshal Service is the enforcement arm of the federal courts.

I wish him well, but I have seen to many attorneys not do their homework.
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Chief US District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson amendment 18 U.S. Code § 930 (f) and extended General Order 13-54-1 to include standing on Federal Property with weapons and not just entering buildings with weapons on March 2, 2015.
This is "our" Government setting up the protesters that they know are going to be with weapons on March 6th to violate a newly amended Federal law and be subject to arrest and prosecution. Furthermore, it is even more apparent that it is retaliatory by the Government since they only changed general order 13-54-1 specifically for Yakima, Richland and Spokane. This is an intentional and malicious act against the people.

Link to the order

http://1.usa.gov/1wZHbuZ

<edit> fixed the date to March 6th.

18 USC 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.



Here is a link to the ruling the judge is only banning firearms on court house grounds and then only in a few selected courts and one post office, I am assuming is appurtenant to the Spokane courthouse.

http://www.waed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general-ordes/15-54-1.pdf
 
Last edited:

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
General Orders / Policy or Law ?


General orders of the Eastern District
: scroll down to "Security" The same Judge wrote the previous general order.

It appears authority is based upon the concensus of a "majority of Article III Judges".

Bio of the Judge, no surprises here. Chief Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson

I understand the relevant section of 18 USC to mean prior notification must be given in order to enforce the order.
If there is no notifiction then enforcement is not possible.

I read the Judges order to mean a political statement as the order is not enforcable.

There is some wording in the code and the judges order that is peculiar.
I believe the word "appurtenant" takes the meaning of an easment, that tack would put the citizens in jeopardy of arrest only if they "knowingly" violated the order.

Note subsection (d) below includes "or other lawful purposes"
18 U.S. Code § 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 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, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(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 or other dangerous weapon 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 21/2 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.




~Whitney
 
Top