JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
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.
 
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.

..
 

You, like many others, do not bother to read the whole law...
(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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Have you looked at the appeal I've cited ? Just curious...
 
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.
 
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" ?
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top