Defensive Carry banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

83 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was reading the Concealed Carry Booklet off the AG's website and found on page 12 an error. Here is the message I sent to AG Petro

Dear Attorney General Petro:

This is to inform you that on page 12 of the Concealed Carry Booklet the following is written. "Federal law prohibitions. Under federal law, 18 United States Code Section 930, it is illegal to have a firearm in a building or part of a building owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees are regularly present for performing their duties. There may be other places where firearms are prohibited. Make yourself aware of specific prohibitions before you arrive carrying a concealed handgun."

This is incorrect. According to 18 USC 930(d)(3) provides exceptions to the prohibition of carrying a weapon. 18 USC 930(d)(3) states the following.

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

This would indicate that if you enter a federal facility other then federal courts as stated in 18 USC 930(a) would be legal because it requires the proof of unlawful intent.

I would like the booklet updated to show that carrying within a federal facility is legal per 18 USC 930(d)(3). Thanks for your attention to this matter.

We should all send the AG messages to update this wording.

3 Posts
Error in CCW law

I completely agree with your assessment. I must however :blink: retrun to my paralegal training. this training has stressed that laws are made purposely vague for the law makers.
In this case, this is a Federal Agency making laws and that gives them tremendous :dead: lattitude in enforcing the phrase or other lawful purposes.
I speak frequently with Law Enforcement Officers, LEO's and get thier opinion of various vague laws, rules, ordinances, statutes, and policies.
We debate (lightly) our opposing views. we eventually come to an agreement to dissagree and that the LEO would have to make a judgement call.
Also remember that your state may have some policy, rule, ordinance, and or statute that may add to and restrict your carrying in Federal buildings such as Post Offices.:comeandgetsome:
I would write to this Attorney General and inform him as to his error. Ask him to clarify the phrase or other lawful purposes. As Top Cop in that State, his clarification may or may not be to your liking, but you will have a clarification.:biggrin2: .
I would strongly suggest that you first do that before jumping into potential deep Federal legal waters.
Losing one's right to bear arms forever will most certaintly be a potential result.
I will end with that our Founding Fathers would never have accepted or allowed this perversion of the 2nd Amendment (favoring the State over the Citizen).:rant:
Be careful, as the LEO's, Courts, Lawyers, and prosecutors have a great deal of legal authority over you and can ruin your day permanently.:hand1:

Remember that a State can add to any Federal policy, rule, regulation, and or law but can not take away from it.:hand1:

3 Posts
ps - error

Another way to say this is as follows:
Laws have multiple avenues in which they can be made

1. Federal Constitutional
2. State Constitutions
3. Federal Legislative actions (Bi-cameral Congress )
4. State legislative actions (Bi-cameral Congress [most of the States])
5. Federal agencies (policies [example: BATF])
6. State Agencies (policies [example SC Department of *.*])
7. Federal Agency Regulations
8. State Agency Regulations
9. County Boards (such as your local elected city, local, and or county council)
10. Executive Orders (U.S. Presidential, and Mayoral). Unless that State's Supreme Court declares that Executive order Unconstitutional, it has the "force of Law" just as the appropriate legislative body created it.

Agencies usually have a "review period" or a "challenge period" in which the potential policy can be reviewed by the citizens. if no citizen objects to the new policy, it becomes within that Agency's jurisdiction a "force of law". That Agency then can prosecute that policy as Congress created that law. A good example is when the EPA introduced the ban of lead bullets. A citizen got hold of that and broadcasted it as "back door" gun control. such a ban would have effectively made all ammunition illegal and thus all guns useless. Since most guns use lead in some manner and or fashion, it would have crippled the gun industry. The EPA recieved such vitriolic responses that it removed that regulation.

18 USC 930(d)(3) probably originated in some Federal Agency and passed the "review period". It became law because a citizen and or citizens did not challenge it and especially the vague phrase or other lawful purposes. A citizen and or group of citizens did not challenge the vagueness of or other lawful purposes.
I don't mean to be technical, but "them are the apples" as it is said.:icon_neutral:
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.