Is It Legal? CC'ing in a National Guard Recruitment Office


PDA






KBintheSLC
January 12, 2009, 02:06 PM
Is It Legal? CC'ing in a National Guard Recruitment Office

Just wondering if I have to leave my gun at home when I visit the recruiter. It is not federal property so to speak... they are leasing the space in a private strip mall. However, under UT State law the lessee is permitted to restrict guns on their leased property. And I think that it would still qualify as a federal building despite the lack of ownership.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is It Legal? CC'ing in a National Guard Recruitment Office" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
divemedic
January 12, 2009, 02:16 PM
Except the people who would espouse the "collective rights" theory constantly claim that the National Guard is not the Army, but is the state militia. That means that a NG recruiter is a state, not Federal, employee. If UT has state preemption, then they may not be able to prohibit carry. Good question.

KBintheSLC
January 12, 2009, 02:19 PM
That means that a NG recruiter is a state, not Federal, employee.

That is what I thought, but I get confused by the big gray area... the Guard works hand-in-hand with national military organizations... and they get deployed with foreign fighting forces, so I am not sure.

Jeff White
January 12, 2009, 03:42 PM
That means that a NG recruiter is a state, not Federal, employee.

The National Guard recruiter is most likely a soldier on active duty under Title 32 USC. That makes him federal, but under control of the governor. I don't know of any states that use contract or career civil service recruiters. As far as I know all of them are AGR (Active Guard Reserve) soldiers.

The Guard is almost 100% federally funded. The state usually owns or leases the facilities. There are exceptions, places where all the recruiters are in a joint facility and some armories are now being built for joint use between the guard and USAR, so you can't really make any kind of blanket statement about if a facility is federal or state and what laws apply.

Why do you think you need to carry there anyway? Press gangs haven't been used in a couple hundred years. I doubt you'd need to shoot your way out of being shanghaied and waking up at an Army reception station.;)

Eightball
January 12, 2009, 03:52 PM
It's an interesting legal issue, to be sure.

I'm going to watch this debate to see what happens.

expvideo
January 12, 2009, 04:00 PM
Am I the only person who thinks that it is ironic and a little saddening that they want to restrict civilians from carrying weapons in a national guard office?

Zundfolge
January 12, 2009, 04:11 PM
Why do you think you need to carry there anyway? Press gangs haven't been used in a couple hundred years. I doubt you'd need to shoot your way out of being shanghaied and waking up at an Army reception station.
I know you're just being glib, but this attitude really bothers me.

No, he will not likely "need" his CCW piece while he's in the office of the recruiter.

But what about in the parking lot?
What about getting gas on the way home?
What about sitting at a traffic light while driving to the office?

And why should he have to risk arming a criminal by leaving his gun in the car while he's in the office?



Anyway, I guess it depends on where the recruiter's office is. Most of the time I see army and NG recruiting offices in small privately owned strip malls, so it would seem to me that its not a forbidden place to carry unless by virtue of it being an office conducting government business that defacto transforms the office into government property (much like a renting an apartment transforms the place into your property for certain legal reasons).

I'd recommend calling down to the office and asking but that would present two problems. 1) chances are the folk working there don't know either and 2) some easily frightened people might consider the call some sort of threat.

NavyLCDR
January 12, 2009, 04:14 PM
According to 18 USC 930 the facility must be posted in order to be prosecuted anyway. So..... no 18 USC 930 posting at the entrance, then carry all you want to.

Just because you think it might be a Federal facility and therefore think that firearms are prohibited does not amount to "actual notice" as used below.

18 USC 930:
(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.

rock hunter
January 12, 2009, 04:18 PM
As I understand the English language the word, infringe means to do anything to attempt to destroy the concept. So that to me means when it iterates "shall not infringe" to not make any laws ,change in any way "the right" to keep and bear arms.

Guitargod1985
January 12, 2009, 04:53 PM
As I understand the English language the word, infringe means to do anything to attempt to destroy the concept. So that to me means when it iterates "shall not infringe" to not make any laws ,change in any way "the right" to keep and bear arms.


Ah, if only I had a nickel...

logical
January 12, 2009, 04:59 PM
Everybody always rails about how cut and dried the "shall not be infringed" part is but pretends the "well regulated" part doesn't need to be considered.

Jeff White
January 12, 2009, 05:02 PM
No, he will not likely "need" his CCW piece while he's in the office of the recruiter.

But what about in the parking lot?
What about getting gas on the way home?
What about sitting at a traffic light while driving to the office?

I have a problem with the attitude that the Kel-Tec in my pocket is my only line of defense. Prohibited places are an unfortunate fact of life. None of us like them, but unless some new psychotropic drug is put into the water supply and the population suddenly is endowed with a massive dose of common sense, it's something we are going to have to live with for the foreseeable future.

There are plenty of reasonably priced gun vaults and other lock boxes that you can mount under your drivers seat to secure your weapon while you go into a prohibited area. If the place you want to go is in such a bad neighborhood that you don't think you an safely walk from the parking lot to the location you want to visit unarmed, then you should probably rethink your decision to go there at all.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are armed. Your mind is the weapon, your firearm is but a tool. If it's the only tool you have then you are unarmed even when you have your firearm.

expvideo
January 12, 2009, 06:57 PM
Everybody always rails about how cut and dried the "shall not be infringed" part is but pretends the "well regulated" part doesn't need to be considered.
Let's not pick and choose what part of the 2A we want. It is one sentence, as it was intended.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is not written leniently or for interpretation. It is very clearly written in plain english. Let's break it down:

"A well regulated militia"

At the time a militia was a military unit formed of citizens that was not controlled by the government, but stood as a civilian defense. That means your neighbors and friends who share a common cause. That does NOT mean the national guard or the Army. Militia has never refered to government controlled forces, not then, not now.

"Being necessary to the security of a free state"

This means that the point of the militias is to keep the (state or the people) safe from anything that would threaten their freedom. If you read any of the writings of the founding fathers, you will know that what they are refering to is defending your state or community against a federal government gone tyranical.

"the right of the people"

Right meaning unalienable right given to us by our creator. People meaning everyone, just like every other time "the people" is mentioned in the constitution.

"To keep and bear arms"

Meaning to own and carry whatever weapons are available. Arms means weapons and in common usage refers to whatever is modern and used by the standing army.

"Shall not be infringed"

Shall not is pretty self explanatory. It is the firmest statement that one can make. That is why "shall not" appears in the 10 commandments. These words were carefully chosen to show how important it was that this was not mistaken for "should not" or "prefferably won't", but stood for the word of God saying "no" in the harshest of tones. "Shall Not" is the most firm and powerful stance that can be taken. Be infringed, meaning be messed with, be regulated, be governed in any way.

SO to put it into modern easy to understand terms...

"To protect the freedom of the people from tyrany, the people must be able to form their own militias, and to do that they must not be regulated in their ownership or possession of weapons in any way."

That is exactly what the 2nd amendment means, and the only reason that it is not written in my words is because the language it is written in was the harshest and most clear way to say the same thing in the 1700s.

It takes a very active imagination to believe that the 2nd amendment means anything else. And besides, the supreme court has upheld that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there is no point in arguing against this.

7.62X25mm
January 12, 2009, 07:15 PM
As I understand the English language the word, infringe means to do anything to attempt to destroy the concept. So that to me means when it iterates "shall not infringe" to not make any laws ,change in any way "the right" to keep and bear arms.

Infringe means to tatter around the edges.

Before you proffer your personal deconstruction of the Second Amendment, have a look into rhetorical style, Renaissance, and Ciceronian model of a periodic sentence.

Jeff White
January 12, 2009, 07:54 PM
Militia has never refered to government controlled forces, not then, not now.

Nope, as written in the constitution militia has always referred to government controlled forces. Article I Section 8 gives congress the power to regulate the militia:

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I Section 10 prohibits the states from keeping troops except in time of war:

Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article II Section 2 makes the president commander in chief of all the armed forces, including the militia of the several states:

Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


The militia has always been a government force. It is not in any way shape or form a check on the government. It is part of the government. Always has been.

You can find a copy of the constitution here:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

SO to put it into modern easy to understand terms...

"To protect the freedom of the people from tyrany, the people must be able to form their own militias, and to do that they must not be regulated in their ownership or possession of weapons in any way."

The United States Supreme Court disagreed with you as far back as 1886.

The states can outlaw private military forces, this has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in their 1886 case Presser v. Illinois.

The court said this about a military organization not under control of the government:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=116&invol=252
Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.

The militia was established by the founding fathers to be a force to preserve the government they had formed, not to be a check on the government. Like it or not, your definition of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The founding fathers and the United States Supreme Court say so.

expvideo
January 12, 2009, 08:00 PM
civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution
source: wordnet.princeton.edu
(found by searching google for "militia definition"

Civilians are the militia. The militia is not a government entity. It is civilians.

greenr18
January 12, 2009, 08:17 PM
i would say it is illegal, the recruiting offices here have signs at the door that say no firearms beyond this point

Friendly, Don't Fire!
January 12, 2009, 08:23 PM
When in doubt, leave the gun in the car (or don't bring it).
Better safe than sorry and possibly arrested on a felony.

Jeff White
January 13, 2009, 12:25 AM
Civilians are the militia. The militia is not a government entity. It is civilians.

The militia doesn't exist until the authorized person in the government (governor, president, congress) calls it up. At that time the civilians become soldiers and part of the government. It is a notional force and it exists as an armed force at the pleasure of congress who has the duty to provide for organizing and equipping it. If congress were to pass a law saying the militia was armed with brooms and shovels, that's what the militia could have because the constitution gives congress the authority to do that.

That is why Heller was such an important decision. It recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms totally exclusive of membership in a militia.

I don't know where the idea that the militia is some kind of check on government power got started, probably by the nutcases who started the modern militia movement in the 1990s, but it's not true. In fact right after this country was created a group of people in the Northeast decided the government was overstepping it's authority and started an armed rebellion. President Washington called up the militia to put down Shay's Rebellion.

During the first integration battles, the governor of Arkansas called up the militia (the National Guard) to stop the integration of the university after federal troops were dispatched to enforce it. President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas guard and used them to assist the federal troops with their task. The militia is a force that is available for the government to use. 26 states ban private militias or other unsanctioned military organizations, private military training or both.

If you form your own military unit to stop the excesses of the government, you can't claim to be the militia, because the militia is an armed force of the government. What you can claim to be is a revolutionary, insurrectionist, and to the militia if they are called out by the government to stop you, you will be a criminal or a terrorist.

209
January 13, 2009, 03:48 AM
I asked the recruiter here. He gave me the deer in the headlights look. :p

Granted he currently uses an office on a State University, so the answer in this case would be you can't carry on a CCW to his office since you can't have a gun on campus (CT University regulations).

But before his office was here, the state leased space in a muncipal building. So, I asked him if it would have been okay back then. He didn't know. So I asked for more information. According to him, the old space lessee was the state military department. Regardless of where the money actually came from, the state was listed as holding the lease. So, if that's the case, I'd guess you have to figure out if the state has a law prohibiting possession in a state military office.

The kicker to the whole thing is that the former office was located in a building that also housed a Civil Air Patrol office (would that be federal property?) and a firearms range run by a semi-public organization. :D It'd be interesting to actually figure out the legalities of that mess, but it'd take a smarter person than me. :D I don't claim to be a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

rhoggman
January 13, 2009, 09:02 AM
I think the question is wether or not the office is Federal Property. To my knowledge this is the reason you cannot carry onto a military base. Your concealed carry license is not valid (unless agreed upon by jurisdictions) on Federal Property.

If the government rents a building in a shopping complex, or at a bussiness complex I do not believe that counts as Federal Property.

As far as I know if a crime took place at such a location it would be under the jurisdiction of the locality, not the Military Police.

Now having said all that I would not risk it because concealing a loaded weapon on Federal Property is a FELONY. This is the kind of mistake that could cost you the right to bear arms.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just thinking out loud.

Erik
January 13, 2009, 10:33 AM
Good posts, Jeff White!

Thank you. Your post was informative and concise concerning information often misrepresented.

Titan6
January 13, 2009, 01:14 PM
If the government rents a building in a shopping complex, or at a bussiness complex I do not believe that counts as Federal Property.

No it counts. Just as when you lease a farm you are given rights to that farm. Normally the proper signs are posted at offices leased by the military/ government.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is It Legal? CC'ing in a National Guard Recruitment Office" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!