- Messages
- 312
- Reactions
- 150
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 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.
Title 38 CFR 1.218 - Security and law enforcement at VA facilities.
1.218 - Security and law enforcement at VA facilities.
(a) Authority and rules of conduct. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 901, the following rules and regulations apply at all property under the charge and control of VA (and not under the charge and control of the General Services Administration) and to all persons entering in or on such property. The head of the facility is charged with the responsibility for the enforcement of these rules and regulations and shall cause these rules and regulations to be posted in a conspicuous place on the property.
(13) Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d),
(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.
You, like many others, do not bother to read the whole law...
If you read the CFR, it also has the same exemption.
OK, that said: Unless you have a ton of money, remember you are fighting a federal burocracy, I would not want to force the point as the VA and the NPS both ignore that exemption.
You may want to challenge the law with the "other lawful purposes" wording. I'd bet you will end up spending a lot of money in attorney fees (or a lot of your personal time) fighting/arguing something that you won't win.
"Other lawful purposes" would be defined as security guards, FBI, other on-duty law enforcement officers, etc. NOT John Q. Public with a CC permit.
In order to correct the erroneous interpretation and application of 18 USC 930 somebody is going to have to be a test case and spend a lot of time and money on it.
Self defense by the general public has been expressly stated to be a "lawful purpose" by the USSC. A CHL would mean that you were carrying legally, with self-defense as your lawful purpose. By the plain language of the law a CHL holder can legally carry on non-sensitive federal property. In order to correct the erroneous interpretation and application of 18 USC 930 somebody is going to have to be a test case and spend a lot of time and money on it.
NOT IT!
Have you looked at the appeal I've cited ? Just curious...
Yes, I have. It does not bear on the question at hand. Murray was told to leave the premises after showing the officers his gun. He refused, became irate, and had to be disarmed and restrained. He did not argue on appeal that he had every right to carry inside the building, nor do I think, given the charges against him of assault, etc., that it would have mattered. He argued that he thought the checkpoint was the line of demarcation between the prohibited area and neutral territory. The court upheld the interpretation that the prohibited area included the whole lobby, including areas outside the checkpoint. The court did not rule, nor was it asked to rule on the validity of the general prohibition in view of the wording of the statute.