Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by nwdrifter, Oct 24, 2012.
I can't find it on line, if you have a permit can you carry at the va hospital
At the VA here in vancouver right when you drive into the property a sign says no firearms. says nothing about concealed or not. just No firearms
NO!!! The VA is a FEDERAL installation. Carrying there is a Federal crime, and you can get into all kinds of trouble. Even having a hunting knife can get you into all kinds of hot water.
My wife works at the clinic up here in Mt. Vernon, and they have *multiple* "No Weapons" signs...which seems a little ridiculous to me...
I may or may not carry every time I go up to see her (I mean, who's to say really?)...but I'm not a patient there, so there's that.
I just asked her to go take a picture of the main sign with her cell phone, I'll post it here if she does.
That's what I was looking for thanks
They also don't have metal detectors.
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.
Hermannr, while that exception exists, I would venture to say that most VA hospitals do not allow hunting in their corridors, so that exemption is out...and since the sign says "No Firearms" I would be willing to bet that "other lawful purposes" is exempted as well, since entry with one could cause you to be trespassed..
At American Lake twenty years ago (1991) there was a hostage event with a knife and plastic gun, as well as several other VA facilities. I wouldn't want to be a test case....especially in hospitals with PTSD treatment facilities. They tend to be more aggressive in their response to these things.
Here is an interesting piece of information into the mix :
UNITED STATES v. MURRAY
Murray was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which reads as follows:  “[W]hoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility ․ or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.” 1  The parties stipulated that the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building is a “federal facility” within the meaning of the statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 930(g)(1), and there was no question at trial (and has been no question on appeal) that the pistol Murray carried into the building, although old, was a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of the statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 930(g)(2).
UNITED STATES v. MURRAY, No.
Doesn't clear anything up really, and it just states what has already been covered, but for the sake of "delivering", here's the pic from the lobby of the VA Clinic my wife works in...
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 the case I cited above an average Joe was at a federal building for a lawful purpose (he had no intention of breaking any law, thus lawful). He had a blackpowder pistol on him, clearly legally, since he was not charged for illegal weapon possession in public. He then gets charged for a possession in a federal building... note that neither side even looked at the "lawful purposes" exemption.
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! aranoid:
Have you looked at the appeal I've cited ? Just curious...
Ignore that statement. It's never a good idea to be a criminal test case. There is a civil suit avenue for these types of problems. But because of the case I've cited above, a challenge would likely fail - no judge wants to go for a circuit split or get overturned.
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.
Well, but what does that mean for the application of "lawful purposes" ?