Firearms are now allowed in National Parks ?

This.

As long as it's not NYC where your rights don't exist.

Also stay away from New Jersey they apparently have never heard of FOPA.

Say what you will about NY.

They can buy these:

img_2561.jpg
 
For real ?

That is damned ugly.

Yep that came with the SAFE act, so it's a mostly "featureless" rifle now and a magazine capacity ban, though they too have the pre-ban concept for mags and rifles.

At least there's no MA-style fiat where you can't have a gun that shares a trigger pin with a banned weapon or some nonsense.
 
Yep that came with the SAFE act, so it's a mostly "featureless" rifle now and a magazine capacity ban, though they too have the pre-ban concept for mags and rifles.
The "pre ban" exemption is a lot tougher.

In MA, the state would have to prove the gun pre-ban, and it is perfectly legal to move in with a pre-ban rifle and keep it (assumiing one has an LTC).

In NY, you need papers to prove you registered you rifle before a cutoff date in the SAFE act.

Big difference.
 
The "pre ban" exemption is a lot tougher.

In MA, the state would have to prove the gun pre-ban, and it is perfectly legal to move in with a pre-ban rifle and keep it (assumiing one has an LTC).

In NY, you need papers to prove you registered you rifle before a cutoff date in the SAFE act.

Big difference.
Definitely a big difference. I still have pre-7/20/16 lowers that I never registered because I never built them. Luckily I have the dated federal paperwork for them, as I intend to build an SBR next year.
 
Would it be so unreasonable so make it a LAW that any location where Firearms are Prohibited have a GOD-DAMN Sign ?

I had to visit my local Social Security Office a couple of years ago - they had signs.

Yes, signs can fall down or be stolen. So put up another !

What the hell are we paying Taxes for, anyways ?
 
Would it be so unreasonable so make it a LAW that any location where Firearms are Prohibited have a GOD-DAMN Sign ?

I had to visit my local Social Security Office a couple of years ago - they had signs.

Yes, signs can fall down or be stolen. So put up another !

What the hell are we paying Taxes for, anyways ?

While I generally agree, here's the problem: If "I didn't see the sign" or "the sign wasn't posted properly" or "the sign was missing" was a legitimate defense then the law is kind of toothless, and would lead to lots of expensive and life-changing cases, some of which would lead to people being imprisoned illegally. (because the legal system isn't always just)

What you *really* want is for places that guns aren't allowed to have security sufficient that it works; and everywhere else guns are allowed.

If security is important, there should be competent guards, and there should be a place to check your gun. If it's just theater, then don't bother.
 
While I generally agree, here's the problem: If "I didn't see the sign" or "the sign wasn't posted properly" or "the sign was missing" was a legitimate defense then the law is kind of toothless, and would lead to lots of expensive and life-changing cases, some of which would lead to people being imprisoned illegally. (because the legal system isn't always just)

What you *really* want is for places that guns aren't allowed to have security sufficient that it works; and everywhere else guns are allowed.

If security is important, there should be competent guards, and there should be a place to check your gun. If it's just theater, then don't bother.

I see your point, and am conceding that until the SCOTUS gets seriously involved defending the 2A, nothing will improve.

However, if the government cannot provide any evidence they ever posted a sign, they are derelict.

As far as Lockers go, I have seen them at the Peabody Essex Museum and the Aquarium - which are not Gun Free Zones anyhow. And I have not seen them at places like North Station, which would be very useful for both Tourists and Commuters. Yes, more places with Lockers would be awfully nice.

Hell, Courthouses will not even let you bring in your Cell Phone ! Can't they provide Lockers for those ?

Thanks for reading my rant.
 
Bringing this thread back on track: always read the law, not what someone else says about the law. (Exception: if the appeals court for your jurisdiction has had something to say, you should read that too.)

Nothing bans carry in "federal buildings". The law states "federal facilities", and then defines "federal facilities" as "...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."

Outhouse or camp pavilion? Carry away. Building staffed by federal government employees? No-go. Ownership of the space doesn't matter; USDA meat inspectors have a designated office in each processing facility, and those designated places are "federal facilities", but the packing plant isn't.

Always start with the text of the law. In this case, it's not complicated except by those who wish to complicate it.

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
 
Bringing this thread back on track: always read the law, not what someone else says about the law. (Exception: if the appeals court for your jurisdiction has had something to say, you should read that too.)

Nothing bans carry in "federal buildings". The law states "federal facilities", and then defines "federal facilities" as "...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."

Outhouse or camp pavilion? Carry away. Building staffed by federal government employees? No-go. Ownership of the space doesn't matter; USDA meat inspectors have a designated office in each processing facility, and those designated places are "federal facilities", but the packing plant isn't.

Always start with the text of the law. In this case, it's not complicated except by those who wish to complicate it.

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities


So, just to play devil's lawyer: Regular cleaning of a bathroom building in a park would absolutely be a place where federal employees "are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties".

The official duties of a bathroom cleaner are to clean bathrooms.
The regular cleaning schedule is both regular and scheduled, therefore "regularly".

Colloquially "regularly" gets conflated with "frequently" or "often"; but in English, "regularly" means "periodically" or "on a schedule" or "predictably"
 
So, just to play devil's lawyer: Regular cleaning of a bathroom building in a park would absolutely be a place where federal employees "are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties".

The official duties of a bathroom cleaner are to clean bathrooms.
The regular cleaning schedule is both regular and scheduled, therefore "regularly".

Colloquially "regularly" gets conflated with "frequently" or "often"; but in English, "regularly" means "periodically" or "on a schedule" or "predictably"
No, and that's been ruled on.
 
No, and that's been ruled on.

What it sounds like you're suggesting is that some court has defined which buildings fulfill the meanings of "regularly" and "duties"

What are the limits of the ruling? Heat/AC? Cash register? A place where a federal employee goes exclusively? (e.g. not a bathroom because they clean many bathrooms; but an information station because Ranger Jane only works at one information station) or something else?
 
I once posted on here somewhere, the sign at Lexington and Concord, at the gift shop, saying no guns allowed.
The very places where the revolution started don't allow guns? Mind = blown. They can F themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom