Ever guilty of breaking the law with your firearm?

[mjbskwim]

I've actually got into an exchange with an officer over this one.
I drive past a school on my way to work. One day I got pulled over for having a brake light out. After running my info he "informed" me that carrying a firearm so close to a school was illegal and that I should find a new route to drive to work.

Needless to say, I still drive to work the same way.

No,see that's for druggies and poyvoyts not law abiding citizens.
I would have busted out laughing at him for that.

As for me,NEVER.Unless you have pics

 

[The B]

The signs on Federal buildings and the PO reference THIS law. This IS the law that gives the sign power.

<broken link removed>

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930
Prev | Next
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
How Current is This?

(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.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.





So if you are lawfully carrying for lawful purposes HOW are you breaking the law?

the section you're listing is as it directly relates to specific instances. the law that expressly prohibits carrying loaded firearms on PO property still applies, therefor simply carrying a concealed handgun is not an example of a "lawful purpose," becuase it's expressly prohibited.

 

[Nwcid]

the section you're listing is as it directly relates to specific instances. the law that expressly prohibits carrying loaded firearms on PO property still applies, therefor simply carrying a concealed handgun is not an example of a "lawful purpose," becuase it's expressly prohibited.

Ok, WHAT law is that?

At the PO's I go to the signs they have ONLY show TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930

 

[The B]

39 CFR 232.1 does.

here's the best explaination i've seen on the topic.. at least on the internet in text form..

originally posted by user JKTex on Texas Gun Talk:

For grins I searched to see what comes up now. Here's something posted on Glocktalk. Although addressing a question that pertains to Ohio, it's got several relevant points, excluding specifics to an Ohio CHL .

It's really a pain in the *** to pull up to the USPS and have to try to unholster and lock up a handgun while trying to make sure Mrs. Smith in the minivan next to you unloading the kids doesn't happen to look over and notice the "guy in the parking lot with a gun". All to spend 45 seconds walking and dropping a package in a box.

Something else to ponder.

>>><<<
There is considerable confusion over whether an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL) can carry a concealed firearm at the post office. This confusion mostly centers around the wording on the signs posted at the post office. The signs quote two sections of federal regulation - 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1.

Looking at 18 USC 930, it would appear, at first blush, that carrying firearms is prohibited. That section provides:

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

Release date: 2004-08-06

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.

So part of the confusion is rooted in the wording of this section. The prohibition applies to "Federal facilit(ies)" except as provide for in subsection (d). Subsection (d) provides:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to-

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Many people have seized upon (d)(3) with the argument that they have a CHL, so their carrying of a firearm is an "other lawful purpose" and therefore they are exempt from the sign. This is problematic for several reasons. First, 39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:

§ 410. Application of other laws

Release date: 2003-06-24

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.

(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:

(1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;

(2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;

Thus it would appear, by operation of 39 USC 410, that 18 USC 930, a law that deals generally with Federal property, does not apply to the Powers of the Postal Service. Rather, the only provisions of 18 USC that would apply are those specific to the post office e.g. Theft of Mail, Robbing Post Offices, Stealing Postal Money Orders etc. Further evidence of the proposition that 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices is in the numbering of the aforementioned 39 CFR 232.1. As we will later examine, 39 CFR 232.1 clearly prohibits carrying firearms. CFR sections typically draw their numbering from the underlying laws that they are promulgated under, although there are numerous exceptions. The numbering of 39 CFR would be further evidence that 39 USC controls the situation, and not 18 USC.

The second problem with relying on 18 USC 930(d)(3) is that this section in no way EMPOWERS anyone to carry a gun; rather, that section simply states that 18 USC 930 does not apply to someone is lawfully carrying a gun incident to some lawful purpose. In Ohio's law, there is a big difference between something NOT BEING PROHIBITED and something BEING SPECIFICALLY LICENSED. Just because a statute says that certain conduct is not prohibited by that particular statute does not automatically equate into authority to engage in the conduct.

This is an important distinction, because the other part of the post office sign cites 39 CFR 232.1, which clearly does prohibit guns in post offices. In pertinent part, it states:

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.

First, as we previously examined, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, as we previously examined, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

This being the case, at a minimum, we have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. That being the case, an Ohio CHL is prohibited from carrying at the post office by Ohio's criminal trespass. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that the Ohio CHL would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.

 

[Nwcid]

39 CFR 232.1 does.

here's the best explaination i've seen on the topic.. at least on the internet in text form..

originally posted by user JKTex on Texas Gun Talk:

Thank you.

So like every other law is written so confusing as to not be able to make sense of it

You can read it 2 different ways. Depending on who is reading it you can either be just fine or in trouble.

If you read 39 CFR 232.1 straight out then it is illegal to have guns in the PO but some how magically you can mail them and not be in trouble. But you say it is ok because it is for "official purposes", well if I am in the PO mailing packages is that not "official purposes"? Of course "official purposes" is not defined

 

[mjbskwim]

Man wouldn't that suck having your coat float open and a cop see your gun,while in a PO?
That could be some expensive stamps there.

All instead of just putting it under the seat.

I mean it's only a FEDERAL offense anyway

 

[chainsaw]

Why, just the other day, I ripped a label off a mattress while my Kimber was on my hip.

Your'e an animal!

 

[orygun]

Twice I've taken my family to Kalifornia to visit my sister and her family. Twice I've broken the law.
To me this comes under the heading of "rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6". Absolutely not going to allow anything to happen to my family when on a road trip.

 

[The B]

To me this comes under the heading of "rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6". Absolutely not going to allow anything to happen to my family when on a road trip.

**** yes.

 

[Bhowe]

I have seen signs outside of schools saying it is a "no gun zone". What that actually means is a mystery to me. They can be pretty creative with signage. For example, I remember in high school they had signs in town saying "Under 21, ZERO TOLERANCE" in reguards to alcohol. Our school officer told us that honestly there still is a .02 limit for underage drivers. The Zero Tolerance was in reference to being over that .02 BAC limit, but they obviously didn't put all that on the sign. What the signs probably reference is if you are charged with a crime, and say you are carrying an illegally owned firearm like if you are a felon, then there would probably be an additional charge. Or if you are a student and you bring a firearm to school that you will be charged. If you are not commiting a crime and legally carrying you probably cannot get in trouble. As far as police offices, I believe it is an individual basis. Issaquah PD has a fairly large Jail, as well as an indoor range that is open to the public for classes and such. I think the only place you cannot carry is into secure areas. Some police departments also have small courts located inside. I know of at least one where you can carry anywhere except through the metal detectors into the courtroom. Metal detectors are always a good indication.

 

[Bhowe]

To answer the original question, yes, I couldn't count the number of traffic offenses I do while carrying. As far as criminal, well, lets just not go there.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have seen signs outside of schools saying it is a "no gun zone". What that actually means is a mystery to me. They can be pretty creative with signage. For example, I remember in high school they had signs in town saying "Under 21, ZERO TOLERANCE" in reguards to alcohol. Our school officer told us that honestly there still is a .02 limit for underage drivers. The Zero Tolerance was in reference to being over that .02 BAC limit, but they obviously didn't put all that on the sign. What the signs probably reference is if you are charged with a crime, and say you are carrying an illegally owned firearm like if you are a felon, then there would probably be an additional charge. Or if you are a student and you bring a firearm to school that you will be charged. If you are not commiting a crime and legally carrying you probably cannot get in trouble. As far as police offices, I believe it is an individual basis. Issaquah PD has a fairly large Jail, as well as an indoor range that is open to the public for classes and such. I think the only place you cannot carry is into secure areas. Some police departments also have small courts located inside. I know of at least one where you can carry anywhere except through the metal detectors into the courtroom. Metal detectors are always a good indication.

I am not sure where he got that information but it is not what I would call good information. In fact I could arrest a 16 yr old simply for being under the influence of alcohol even if they were not driving when I was in uniform. Most states have laws regarding underage intoxication and drinking.

 

[spider]

I threw a bullet at a guy that was on my property at 230am, and told him the next one is coming at 1100fps and showed my Sig p238, I had my x26 taser on me but figured the bullet would scare him off faster, never saw him again...poor meter reader, joking about the meter reader part, but that was in the area of where I found this bum lurking.

 

[joeroket]

As far as police offices, I believe it is an individual basis..... I think the only place you cannot carry is into secure areas.

You are correct that the only place in a PD you cannot carry is in the restricted areas. Basically if you need a key/combo to open the door then you cannot carry.

The RCW's give no provisions for cities/counties to create law when it comes to possession of a firearm. If it is not unlawful under state law then cities must abide. There is no individual basis allowed. The law strictly disallows it in courts or the portion of a building that is used in connection with court proceedings except for the ingress and egress where they must check or allow storage of firearms.

 

[Swedish K]

That's one heck of a first post!

Welcome aboard.

Thanks - it was quite memorable - more-so than being interviewed by feds after one of the guns that we built was linked to a crime scene...

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Once upon a time -Pre 9/11 a friend showed up on a Friday night with tickets to Vegas so he could pickup his truck. At the time we had a FFL mfg license with tax stamp. I had 30 min to pack so we loaded some AKs, an Uzi and an MP5 into the lock box but I thought I had left a 32 with a can in the shop safe. About 1/2 way to Vegas I had a small coronary when I remembered that I had last transported the 32 in my duffel that was currently above me in the overhead compartment. after we left the airport I checked the bag and sure enough I had accidentally boarded a flight with a 32, a can, a box of ammo and 3 live mags. Needless to say I always make sure my bags are empty prior to packing for a flight since that trip...

I posted a long time ago about a similar experience. I was stationed in Arizona and we received last minute orders that we were needed for an on-going investigation in Alabama. They rushed us straight from duty to a local airfield. We then boarded a flight which was being held for us on the runway. After about 20 minutes in the air the flight attendant came over and told me and my partner that we would have to make arrangements during our flight change to put those in checked baggage. She was talking about our sidearms which we were both still wearing. She then said the pilot requested for us to remove the mags and clear the chamber for the duration of the flight (which I though was more dangerous than just leaving them holstered) and we complied. When we got to Texas to change planes the airline actually loaned us plastic cases and pad locks to secure and check them into baggage for the next flight.

 

[Bhowe]

I am not sure where he got that information but it is not what I would call good information. In fact I could arrest a 16 yr old simply for being under the influence of alcohol even if they were not driving when I was in uniform. Most states have laws regarding underage intoxication and drinking.

You are not the first PO to not know the law. (Read my thread on Silencer Laws and Snohomish SO) so let me spell it out. That way you can print it out and keep it with you, you know, to avoid being embarrased in a courtroom.

Washington State laws regarding driving:
Any minor in possession (alcohol or drug) offense will result in loss of your driver's license for one year (1st offense) or for two years (2nd offense).
Under age 21 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a .02-.07 BAC has the
following penalties:
1st Offense: 90-day license suspension, maximum 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine
2nd Offense: License revoked until age 21 or at least 1 year, maximum 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine
Any age Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a BAC of .08 or higher has the
following penalties:
1st Offense: 90-day license suspension, 1 day jail or 15-day electronic home monitoring, fines $8,125, possible ignition interlock
2nd Offense: License revoked for minimum of two years, minimum 30 days in jail and 60 days electronic home monitoring, fines $8,125, possible five year ignition interlock.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You are not the first PO to not know the law. (Read my thread on Silencer Laws and Snohomish SO) so let me spell it out. That way you can print it out and keep it with you, you know, to avoid being embarrased in a courtroom.

Washington State laws regarding driving:
Any minor in possession (alcohol or drug) offense will result in loss of your driver's license for one year (1st offense) or for two years (2nd offense).
Under age 21 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a .02-.07 BAC has the
following penalties:
1st Offense: 90-day license suspension, maximum 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine
2nd Offense: License revoked until age 21 or at least 1 year, maximum 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine
Any age Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with a BAC of .08 or higher has the
following penalties:
1st Offense: 90-day license suspension, 1 day jail or 15-day electronic home monitoring, fines $8,125, possible ignition interlock
2nd Offense: License revoked for minimum of two years, minimum 30 days in jail and 60 days electronic home monitoring, fines $8,125, possible five year ignition interlock.

And you are not the first person that has made the big mistake of thinking that just because one law does not disallow something that there are not other laws that cover it. There are usually separate laws regarding underage persons under the influence which can be used while driving or while just walking. Also, you seem to be muddying the waters a bit with the difference between "underage" and "under 21." Underage would be 17 and under. Since you said this was posted at your high school and that is where and when you received the advice I would assume you are under 18 at the time and not just under 21. Unless you did not do so well in high school.

 

[Swedish K]

Long long ago in a galaxy far far away (which is now a Communist country) concealed carry without a permit was a misdemeanor, so I figured better tried by 12 than carried by 6. (Note that the Statute of Limitations kicked in several geological epochs back.) I do my best to avoid traversing that galaxy and will add a day's drive to a trip just to avoid the place and stay in Free America. When it reverts to Mexico and becomes La Republica de Aztlan Norte I will dance a jig because they will no longer afflict the rest of us with the Socialist morons they send to Congress.

Ahh the PRC - home to the biggest hypocrite of all - Mrs. Feinstein - one of four CCW holders for San Francisco - she is in favor of banning the second amendment for "we the subjects" but she sure is quick to take advantage of her position - about 10 years ago she was one of 7 SF residents with CCW but sometime in the last 5 years they eliminated 3 more permits.

I agree about the tried by 12/carried by six option btw - especially when it was a felony to carry a concealed knife with a double edge blade or a blade over 4" and a felony to carry an expanding baton or sap but only a misdemeanor for carry of a concealed firearm... the lessor of evils seems to be reasonable when all others are not.

 

[mjbskwim]

I posted a long time ago about a similar experience. I was stationed in Arizona and we received last minute orders that we were needed for an on-going investigation in Alabama. They rushed us straight from duty to a local airfield. We then boarded a flight which was being held for us on the runway. After about 20 minutes in the air the flight attendant came over and told me and my partner that we would have to make arrangements during our flight change to put those in checked baggage. She was talking about our sidearms which we were both still wearing. She then said the pilot requested for us to remove the mags and clear the chamber for the duration of the flight (which I though was more dangerous than just leaving them holstered) and we complied. When we got to Texas to change planes the airline actually loaned us plastic cases and pad locks to secure and check them into baggage for the next flight.

My buddy was flying to Baghdad,with guns in hand.Army chartered flight and all.

One of the security told them they would have to do something with their KNIVES

So his SAW was cool,not the knives.