firearms in a federal facility question

unrequited · May 24th, 2007, 10:40 PM

(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.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0----000-.html

Why isn't carrying for personal protection or self-defense a "lawful carrying of firearms incident to other lawful purposes"?

Bob The Great · May 24th, 2007, 11:18 PM

2 words - case law. Basically, courts have decided that self-defense is not covered by "lawful purposes", in spite of what the written law says, and that trumps normal common sense.

cagueits · May 25th, 2007, 12:24 AM

Because the law is vague and the judge that sees one case does not necesarily see it the same way as other judges may see it. So what is legal today may not be tomorrow, and then it may be legal again or not in the future.

May 24th, 2007, 10:40 PM	#1
unrequited Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: V Posts: 88	firearms in a federal facility question (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. (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0----000-.html Why isn't carrying for personal protection or self-defense a "lawful carrying of firearms incident to other lawful purposes"?

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

May 24th, 2007, 11:18 PM	#2
Bob The Great Distinguished Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Slidell, LA Posts: 1,451	2 words - case law. Basically, courts have decided that self-defense is not covered by "lawful purposes", in spite of what the written law says, and that trumps normal common sense.

May 25th, 2007, 12:24 AM	#3
cagueits Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Puerto Rico Posts: 762	Because the law is vague and the judge that sees one case does not necesarily see it the same way as other judges may see it. So what is legal today may not be tomorrow, and then it may be legal again or not in the future.