If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I know we can't carry in federal building and schools, but what about pd's? These are considered federal that I know of. Thanks ahead of time.
I know we can't carry in federal building and schools, but what about pd's? These are considered federal that I know of. Thanks ahead of time.
Anyone have the citation for no carry in federal building? I'm curious of the wording, consindering I'm a federal employee. Haha.
Anyone have the citation for no carry in federal building? I'm curious of the wording, consindering I'm a federal employee. Haha.
I've posted it here before, but if you go into any USPO and SEARCH for that obscure poster, write down both the USC (law) and CFR (regulation) to see what it says exactly. Hint: Wording on USPO poster is INTENTIONALLY misleading, but reports from Asst US Attorneys are that they have prosecuted (successfully) based on the misleading poster in a number of cases. NO, I do not have any cites, but the info came to me from LEOs in other states.
On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.
I don't suppose Personal protection = other lawful purpose?
United States v. Howard De La Cruz-Bancroft (2010) said:The Court concludes that the plain language of § 930(d)(3) is clear. It provides that carrying a firearm in a Federal facility "incident to" hunting or other lawful purpose is lawful. Thus, by its express terms the statute demands inquiry into defendant's purpose in bringing the firearm to a Federal facility. In other words, the possession of the firearm must be not only lawful, but also must be for a lawful purpose that is related to the federal facility. Any other interpretation would fail to give full effect to every word in the statute. Quarles v. U.S. ex rel. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 372 F.3d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 2004) (court should "construe the words of the statute in their ordinary sense . . . giv[ing] effect, if possible, to every word of the statute."). Thus, the Court holds that § 930(d)(3) applies to the lawful possession of a weapon incident to hunting or to another lawful purpose related to the Federal facility in question.
SEE: 18 USC 930
On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.
That's funny. I had a student tell me that the BPD checked his gun while he was in there to submit his renewal application.Not much of a story. Forgot it was in my pocket and had it confiscated and placed in a box with all the other knives. I didn't make a stink about it because I was going in there to pick up something far more valuable to me than the knife.
Nice job following an interesting case. Also from Colorado this week we have on Thursday oral arguments in Gray Peterson's 10th Circuit appeal.SEE: 18 USC 930
On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.
...The quoted case law is totally ambiguous...
Defendant argues that § 930(d)(3) permits carrying a firearm into any Federal facility if one was carrying firearm lawfully outside of the Federal facility. However, this interpretation of the exception in § 930(d)(3) suffers from several defects. First, it does not give full effect to the entire statute, which requires a lawful purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. If mere lawful possession of the weapon outside the facility were enough, then there would be no need for the phrase “hunting or other lawful purposes.” Thus, the Court concludes that in accordance with the statute, the factfinder should determine Defendant’s purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. Second, Defendant’s interpretation of § 930(d)(3) would largely swallow the prohibition set forth in § 930(a) generally prohibiting firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities. If mere lawful possession of the firearm outside the Federal facility were enough to permit someone to bring it inside, virtually anyone could bring such a weapon inside a Federal facility for any reason, particularly in a state like New Mexico which liberally permits individuals to carry unconcealed firearms. Finally, Defendant’s interpretation would result in inconsistent results. As the parties have pointed out, state laws regarding possessing and carrying weapons in public vary considerably. Some states, like New Mexico, permit citizens to carry unconcealed firearms in public without a license, while others have more restrictive laws. Thus, under Defendant’s interpretation of the statute, his act of bringing an unconcealed weapon into a Federal facility would not be unlawful in New Mexico, but would constitute a crime in some other states. There is no indication that Congress intended such an uneven result when it enacted this law to protect those who work and conduct business in Federal facilities.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record regarding defendant’s purpose in bringing the firearm to the Federal facility at 500 Gold on February 27, 2008. As stated above, the statute requires that the purpose be lawful, and that it relate to the Federal facility in some way. At the December 17, 2009 hearing, defendant’s counsel suggested that many Americans carry firearms for personal security and self-defense, a purpose that is embraced by Article 2, section 6 of the New Mexico constitution, which authorizes carrying unconcealed firearms in this State. However, from the record it appears that there has been no fact finding as to what the defendant’s actual purpose was in bringing the firearm to the Federal facility, whether that purpose was lawful, or whether it related to the Federal facility as required by § 930(d)(3).
The court indicated that the otherwise lawful carrying of a firearm (presumably for protection), is likely insufficient to trigger the exemption...
I've posted it here before, but if you go into any USPO and SEARCH for that obscure poster, write down both the USC (law) and CFR (regulation) to see what it says exactly. Hint: Wording on USPO poster is INTENTIONALLY misleading, but reports from Asst US Attorneys are that they have prosecuted (successfully) based on the misleading poster in a number of cases. NO, I do not have any cites, but the info came to me from LEOs in other states.