I don't care if you have a CHL - Page 3

Sixgunner · June 17th, 2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

Otherwise, the signs by themselves here mean nothing. I just blow off signs, but I won't carry where it's against the law.

They may not mean nothing to you but they do to the owner. So you don't care of other folks rights on what they will and won't allow in/on their property?

InspectorGadget · June 17th, 2009, 03:01 PM

From Cornell University Law School
US CODE: Title 18,930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

Quote:

§ 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.

I am in no hurry to be a test case BUT note:

Quote:

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

For the lawyers out there wouldn't a CWL and associated weapon fall under "other lawful purposes" or has this been tested in federal case law and shot down? Specifically under whose authority are they recognizing (d) (a) (1) and (2) while denying (d) (a) (3) can the janitor decide to deny (d)(a)(3) and it have the force of law?

Quote:

License to carry a concealed firearm issued under state law is not an exception to this federal prohibition.

This add on in red is NOT in title 18,930.

Now that I look at the Statute it would also cover you having your weapon on you when you visit a National Park Office (also a federal building) while you are in the national park.

PM · June 17th, 2009, 04:03 PM

As long as there is a way to make sure you are not carrying a weapon then I have no problem being disarmed --- arm guards and metal detectors and strip search work for me!!

[/joke]

Saber · June 17th, 2009, 04:30 PM

I think its’ offensive to me that the Social Security Administration would push an ideology in this signage. It’s one thing to prohibit firearms and quite another to state it’s a prohibition. Yeah, so where is the ACLU on this sort of injustice?

BTW: My last sentence was simply a cynical remark ~
Regards,

MitchellCT · June 17th, 2009, 04:45 PM

With the Obama administration and democrats in congress desperate for another term, maybe this is another issue which may need to be addressed in emails and letters...

I'm just saying, if you can ammend the US Code for National Parks, and an amendment to a hate crime bill (teddy K's bill...) is being pushed...

Maybe this is another area to work with.

I'm not saying...I'm just saying...

Majorlk · June 17th, 2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saber

I think its’ offensive to me that the Social Security Administration would push an ideology in this signage. It’s one thing to prohibit firearms and quite another to state it’s a prohibition. Yeah, so where is the ACLU on this sort of injustice?

Regards,

The ACLU will not participate in the defense of any 2nd Amendment issue. They have a representation of every amendment on the wall of their headquarters EXCEPT the 2nd.

They hold there is no constitutional right for the individual to bear arms under any circumstances.

Cycler · June 17th, 2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glock27mark

been there before a few times. kinda reminds me of the greyhound bus station in downtown detroit.. seems like all the places you wish you
could carry, you can't. (atleast not legally) unemployment offices
are'nt much better ethier.

I hope you don't mean it's illegal to cary in the Screamin' dog station. The first or second time I carried I was dropping a buddy off there (i.e. the greyhound station in down town Detroit) and felt strongly compelled to cary.

I checked the no-cary zones on the web for Michigan and didn't see bus stations listed. I was O.k. wasn't I. (i.e. you were just using the greyhound station as an illustration yes?)

InspectorGadget · June 17th, 2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

Since it's a Federal office, I believe that it would be illegal to carry there even without the sign. Otherwise, the signs by themselves here mean nothing. I just blow off signs, but I won't carry where it's against the law.

Quote:

(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

I am not saying you are wrong, I am trying to understand the Federal law? Subsection (e) is Federal Court Buildings, Subsection (a) is Federal buildings other than Federal Court, by this if the Federal Bldg is not posted then it is allowed. If it is posted there seems to be an argument that it is allowed under Subsection (d)(3)?

Donodii · June 18th, 2009, 05:07 AM

I went with my wife after we got married and I adopted my daughter to change the SS cards and birth certificates. There is a sign on the door and an armed officer inside. When you get in he asks if you have any knives, guns, weapons and to state the nature of your business and to take a seat, and each time even if you need to go back to the car for additional paperwork. We were in one day and a group of guys, about 7 walked iin and only 1 could barely speak English, or at least thats what they claimed, anyway the officer was asking the same questions as he does everyone and when they stare at him, he gives up and points for them to take a seat. Now, this kinda ticks me off, that everyone else got the big long speach and answered his questions each time, but when this group comes in he doesnt do squat. Now if they were going to do something and talking amongst themselves and no one could understand the language, how is one officer going to control the situation and unlock the door so everyone else could escape. Somewhere some laws just dont have to make sense.

Furious Kang · June 18th, 2009, 08:37 AM

If they've got federal officers there running people through detectors, I have no problem with not carrying my gun inside the Fed Bldg, however if it's just a sign, then we all know, normal armed folks with obey it and criminals will ignore it, so once again it merely disarms the honest people it is supposedly designed to protect.

And I fear this will only get worse.

June 17th, 2009, 04:30 PM	#24
Saber Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Yuma, Arizona Posts: 766	I think its’ offensive to me that the Social Security Administration would push an ideology in this signage. It’s one thing to prohibit firearms and quite another to state it’s a prohibition. Yeah, so where is the ACLU on this sort of injustice? BTW: My last sentence was simply a cynical remark ~ Regards, __________________ “Monsters are real and so are ghosts. They live inside of us, and sometimes they win.” ~ Stephen King Last edited by Saber; June 17th, 2009 at 08:54 PM..

June 18th, 2009, 05:07 AM	#29
Donodii Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Imperial, MO Posts: 158	I went with my wife after we got married and I adopted my daughter to change the SS cards and birth certificates. There is a sign on the door and an armed officer inside. When you get in he asks if you have any knives, guns, weapons and to state the nature of your business and to take a seat, and each time even if you need to go back to the car for additional paperwork. We were in one day and a group of guys, about 7 walked iin and only 1 could barely speak English, or at least thats what they claimed, anyway the officer was asking the same questions as he does everyone and when they stare at him, he gives up and points for them to take a seat. Now, this kinda ticks me off, that everyone else got the big long speach and answered his questions each time, but when this group comes in he doesnt do squat. Now if they were going to do something and talking amongst themselves and no one could understand the language, how is one officer going to control the situation and unlock the door so everyone else could escape. Somewhere some laws just dont have to make sense. __________________ Never argue with idiots - they'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 17th, 2009, 04:03 PM	#23
PM Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kansas Posts: 295	As long as there is a way to make sure you are not carrying a weapon then I have no problem being disarmed --- arm guards and metal detectors and strip search work for me!! [/joke]

June 17th, 2009, 04:45 PM	#25
MitchellCT Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 1,016	With the Obama administration and democrats in congress desperate for another term, maybe this is another issue which may need to be addressed in emails and letters... I'm just saying, if you can ammend the US Code for National Parks, and an amendment to a hate crime bill (teddy K's bill...) is being pushed... Maybe this is another area to work with. I'm not saying...I'm just saying...

June 18th, 2009, 08:37 AM	#30
Furious Kang New Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Delaware Posts: 9	If they've got federal officers there running people through detectors, I have no problem with not carrying my gun inside the Fed Bldg, however if it's just a sign, then we all know, normal armed folks with obey it and criminals will ignore it, so once again it merely disarms the honest people it is supposedly designed to protect. And I fear this will only get worse.