Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Ccw at the va

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by nwdrifter, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. nwdrifter

    nwdrifter troutdale oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    144
    I can't find it on line, if you have a permit can you carry at the va hospital
     
  2. Nightshade

    Nightshade vancouver,WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,005
    Likes Received:
    847
    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
     
  3. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross Winlock, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    752
    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.
     
    fd15k and (deleted member) like this.
  4. etrigan420

    etrigan420 Warshington New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
  5. BSG 75

    BSG 75 Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    271
    ..
     
    fd15k and (deleted member) like this.
  6. nwdrifter

    nwdrifter troutdale oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    144
    That's what I was looking for thanks
     
  7. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    They also don't have metal detectors.
     
  8. hermannr

    hermannr Okanogan Highlands Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,830
    Likes Received:
    871
    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.
     
  9. One-Eyed Ross

    One-Eyed Ross Winlock, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,367
    Likes Received:
    752
    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.
     
  10. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    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.
     
  11. etrigan420

    etrigan420 Warshington New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7
    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...

    va-1.jpg

    va-1.jpg
     
  12. AMT

    AMT Vancouver, WA. Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    575
    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.
     
  13. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    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.
     
  14. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke Eugene Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    3,511
    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.
     
  15. AMT

    AMT Vancouver, WA. Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    575
    Exactly. :thumbup:
     
  16. etrigan420

    etrigan420 Warshington New Member

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    7
    NOT IT! :paranoid:
     
  17. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Have you looked at the appeal I've cited ? Just curious...
     
  18. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    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.
     
  19. ZigZagZeke

    ZigZagZeke Eugene Silver Supporter Silver Supporter 2015 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    3,511
    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.
     
  20. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Well, but what does that mean for the application of "lawful purposes" ?