18 US code 930

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

akodo

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,779
Possession of firearms in Federal Facilities.

Shall not apply to -

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

If carring is specifically lawful (example, carry with a permit of some sort, or with clear legislation addressing open carry), what is covered by "other lawful purpose"?
 
akodo said:
...If carring is specifically lawful (example, carry with a permit of some sort, or with clear legislation addressing open carry), what is covered by "other lawful purpose"?
Click to expand...
Well, unless you can find some case law on the question there's no way to know for sure.

If anyone has done some research and can cite some legal authority bearing on the question, please share. But opinions not supported with applicable legal authority will be deleted as off-topic.
 
I'm a federal employee, and a couple years ago I was tasked with posting this information at our office. I started asking the same questions about subsection d(3) as akudo. I looked at three other federal office postings of 18usc930 and found that all of them were incorrect. Specifically, 18usc930 subsection h says the text of subsections a and b must be posted. The three offices I looked at all just said "firearms and dangerous weapons prohibited," and referenced subsection c.

I asked my supervisor (the district ranger) and our local LEO for clarification regarding what this statute actually prohibited. Neither had ever read the actual text. I asserted to both of them that, since the US Constitution reserves our right to keep and bear arms, the subsection d3 exemptions indicate that lawful carrying of firearms such as a holstered handguns were not forbidden by this statute. They didn't disagree with my assertion, but as Frank Ettin suggests, nobody wants to be the test case.
 
Cannibul said:
Law enforcement.
Click to expand...

(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;

1 covers law enforcement. It doesn't make sense to make a list that is
1. LEO
2. Military
3. LEO
 
Frank Ettin said:
Well, unless you can find some case law on the question there's no way to know for sure.

If anyone has done some research and can cite some legal authority bearing on the question, please share. But opinions not supported with applicable legal authority will be deleted as off-topic.
Click to expand...


Yes, this is what I am driving at. I suspect it's never been tested, so there isn't any case law...at least not post Heller.

A few thoughts on this.

The fact that 1 and 2 cover LEO and military, and there still is a 3, plain reading says there must be others who are allowed, or there would be no need to have a 3rd on that list.

Why post Heller, there self defence is cited as a lawful purpose. Of course it only actually mentions self defense in the home. But it mentions it in such a way as it is referencing many lawful uses of guns, self defense in the home being just one.

So I guess I am asking, are there any laws or rulings out there that list (non-hunting) 'lawful' carrying of a firearm? Pest elimination? Historical research?
 
akodo said:
.... I guess I am asking, are there any laws or rulings out there that list (non-hunting) 'lawful' carrying of a firearm? Pest elimination? Historical research?
Click to expand...
I think we know what you're asking. And since the only answers which really mean anything will need to be supported by applicable legal authority there might very well be no good answers.
 
Cannibul said:
Frank is right.

The best known example would be carrying into a Post Office.
Click to expand...
Yup oath breaking 101 where do public 'servants' get the authority to strip citizens of their constutional rights? Had a similar (and pointless) discussion witb a couple of different federalies grrr
 
woerm said:
....where do public 'servants' get the authority to strip citizens of their constutional rights? Had a similar (and pointless) discussion witb a couple of different federalies grrr
Click to expand...

The authority is inherent in sovereignty:
.... The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived;....
Click to expand...
It is expressed by acts of the legislative branches of our governments and the administrative acts of the executives branches of our governments (at the federal, state, and local levels).

Of course in our system sovereignty is subject to constitutional constraints, and disputes regarding whether a particular branch of government has in a particular instance acted outside those constraints is within the authority of our legal system to resolve. That is the nature of government. Furthermore, in our system the body politic has ultimate authority to elect the representatives who serve in the legislative branches of our governments, as well as the senior members of the executive branches.

​
 
I've run into it in business but the concept is the same....

Laws, codes, mandates....enjoy the force of law, unless and until someone challenges them. Often in order to have "Standing" you've had to run a fowl of them or be part of a well funded organization that can fight the "Standing" battle first....

What it comes down to is, many government decisions (At all levels) enjoy the force of law unless proven otherwise, and to do so risks much time, money and possibly losing! AND THEY KNOW IT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
18 USC 930(d) "and other lawful purposes"
Replies
9
Views
2K
docwatson
D
Y
  • Locked
Can we include "Post Office Carry" in the National Reciprocity bill?
Replies
1
Views
624
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
T
  • Locked
Why aren't CCW holders allowed to carry into a Post Office?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
sonyhoppes
S
T
  • Locked
Weapons in federal facilities?
Replies
15
Views
1K
col_temp
C
D
  • Locked
The incredible arrogance of public employees
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Dex Sinister
D
Back
Top