18 USC 930(d) "and other lawful purposes"

[LawBot5000]

I'm going to be working for the federal government for a few months this year in VA and I want to continue to concealed carry. I have a permit that is valid in VA. I wanted to know about the meaning of 18 USC 930 which appears to ban firearms on federal property but makes an exception for "lawful purposes."

And yes, right now I'm assuming that concealed carry is completely forbidden but I can't find the legal basis for such a rule. No, I don't fit under the LE/military exceptions in 930(d). I am a bot of the law arguing variety, not the law enforcement variety.

18 USC 930 (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.

18 USC 930 (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) [law enforcement officers enforcing laws]
(2) [military and government people authorized to have weapons]
(3) (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Believe me, I checked lexis-nexis and despite my best efforts I could only find caselaw clarifying the meaning of the "knowingly" element but nothing that clarified the meaning of the terms "other lawful purposes."

An reasonable person might be construe that to mean that since concealed carry and self defense are both entirely lawful in Virginia that they would constitute a "lawful purpose." However, federal law is often fickle in its adherence to ordinary language and reasonable people also hate to be test cases.

 

[xjchief]

I work for the feds and I'm not allowed to carry or keep a gun in my car at work. I think that was put in there so that our guards and other federally authorized people can carry weapons.

 

[csmkersh]

While you might, with a good lawyer, avoid incarceration, you will be fired. While you're at it, read closely the posting of notices requirement in 930(g)(3).
​

 

[LawBot5000]

Uh, there is no posting of notices requirement in g(3) and there are several court cases that hold that there is no need for a notice.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of a similar state law like TX 30.06?

 

[csmkersh]

No, I was speaking of USC Title 18, Section 930 (3)(g) but that has since been revised. What I was speaking of is NOW found in USC Title 18, Section 930 (h):

(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.​

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well, dang it, Sam, now you have just given us all actual notice of subsection (a) and (e) and taken away our excuse...

 

[csmkersh]

Lo siento, Senior. No hablo ingles.
​

 

[docwatson]

I plagiarized your post and sent it along to US DOJ just to see where they stand and once I get an answer, I'll post it here.

 

[csmkersh]

Doc, while we're waiting, how about picking out a tune or three....

I'm certain they'll weasel around on this and their answer won't be much better than the one I gave NavyLT, "Lo siento, Senior. No hablo ingles."

​

 

[docwatson]

I just emailed Webb, Warner, and Davis for assistance.