Ccw at the va

[ZigZagZeke]

Well, but what does that mean for the application of "lawful purposes" ?

It means that what the USSC said in many instances in the Heller decision still stands:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

I recommend you read Heller carefully:

http://www.azcdl.org/USSC_DCvHeller.pdf

 

[hermannr]

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

There are two problems with this case, and it's use...did you see the footnote:

Footnote: The statute excepts law enforcement officers, military personnel, and those lawfully carrying weapons incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.  18 U.S.C. § 930(d).  Murray does not fit any of the exceptions.

there is no information given as to why Mr. Murrey was armed...but I see nothing here "for self defense" as being argued as a "lawful purpose" that is/was excluded. It just not state why Murrey was armed with a BP pistol a all, so we don't know the reason, other than the jury did not think it was a "lawful" reason.

No, in both OR, ID and WA the state constitutions specifically state that an individual may bear arms for his/her own personal self defense. no license necessary. So, personal self defense has to be a lawful reason in our states.

Again, I will state, It is not that you may not be arrested...you probably will, but are you willing for the legal fight to prove a point?

We have a VA clinic here in Tonasket at the North Valley Hospitol (County owned public hospital) I know the hospital cannot prohibit weapons...can the clinic? I don't think so, but I have never been there though I sould really go for my hearing. Also, the people I get my Medicare supplimental insurance from say I can get meds through them rather than paying for manditory Medicare drug insurance. However, I don't use any meds so, again, never been there.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Another thing to note is that, regardless of the state law/constitution, FEDERAL facilities are FEDERAL property and the state's laws do NOT apply...

 

[fd15k]

There are two problems with this case, and it's use...did you see the footnote:

Exactly. I can only speculate what would lawful purposes be in this case. Maybe turning in evidence to FBI ? Or transporting cash for an armed vehicle company ? Who knows... What we know, average Joe with a gun in a Federal Building is not lawful.

Now perhaps ZigZagZeke will correct me, but I believe I have seen precedents to work that way - once a higher blanket precedent is established (all average Joes with guns are no-no), next case to come up in a lower court will not attempt to make a more narrow ruling.