Does Federal Facilities also include parking lots?
- Thread starter JellyJar
- Start date
- Status
brboyer
Member
Not sure what a judge would say, but to me it's clear a "part of a building" means a part of a building, like a floor or office, not the whole thing. And not anything outside, like parking lots.
Not sure what a judge would say, but to me it's clear a "part of a building" means a part of a building, like a floor or office, not the whole thing. And not anything outside, like parking lots.
I read it differently and think you could argue the parking lot is a part of the building especially if walkways connect them (but I don't know the legal answer).
My point would be, this is not a definition discussion I'd want to have IN FRONT of a judge, so be sure!
I read it differently and think you could argue the parking lot is a part of the building especially if walkways connect them (but I don't know the legal answer).
My point would be, this is not a definition discussion I'd want to have IN FRONT of a judge, so be sure!
RETG
Member
I work in a Federal Facility (stand alone building, leased by the Federal Government with a stand alone parking lot) and we do not consider the parking lot as part of the facility.
wyocarp
Member
What part of "in a Federal facility" or "for the purpose of performing their official duties" includes the parking lot?
Here is the reason I started this thread in the first place.
I live in North Alabama not far from the TVA Muscle Shoals Reservation. The northern part of this reservation has several recreational facilities including hike and bike trails which I like to use. I am trying to find out if it is legal for people with valid CCW permits or such to carry concealed handguns in these recreation areas.
Once, last summer, at a shooting range in Huntsville Al I met a TVA policeman who works in eastern North Alabama and just for the heck of it asked if I could carry on TVA recreation areas. I was expecting a definite NO because of it being Federal land, but to my surprise he said it was perfectly legal. However, a while ago, just to be on the safe side, I called the TVA Police in Muscle Shoals and asked if it was legal to CCW in the recreational areas. The person I talked to wasn't very nice about the question. He seemed very upset that I would even ask about such a thing. He said "You better not be caught with a gun there".
Now I am confused. I wasn't able to find out exactly what Federal law or TVA regulation would make CCW there illegal so I decided to look it up on the internet. Well lo and behold the only info I could find was about some recreational areas in North East Tennessee and it said it was legal in some TVA recreational areas but not others but no general rules or regulations saying it was illegal in the recreational areas where I lived.
www.tva.gov/foia/code_of_conduct.pdf
Then I decided to contact the head of the TVA police and ask him. Of all things he did not know for sure right off the bat. The only thing he could point to was 18 USC § 930 which I cited in my first post. I then ask for clarification about what exactly was and was not a "Federal Facility" and he ( not knowing I had already contacted them ) told me to contact the Muscle Shoals office for more information.
Here is part of those emails:
The head of the TVA police does not know!!!
It seems I have stumbled upon one of those legal gray areas you encounter from time to time. The most I have found out is that there does not appear to be any case law regarding the correct definition of "Federal Facility" as defined in 18 USC § 930.
I am not ready or willing at now to be a test case to find out! I am hoping that there is someone who can authoritatively say one way or the other.
I believed that the person I talked to in Muscle Shoals who wasn't very nice was this Captain Kelly.
I live in North Alabama not far from the TVA Muscle Shoals Reservation. The northern part of this reservation has several recreational facilities including hike and bike trails which I like to use. I am trying to find out if it is legal for people with valid CCW permits or such to carry concealed handguns in these recreation areas.
Once, last summer, at a shooting range in Huntsville Al I met a TVA policeman who works in eastern North Alabama and just for the heck of it asked if I could carry on TVA recreation areas. I was expecting a definite NO because of it being Federal land, but to my surprise he said it was perfectly legal. However, a while ago, just to be on the safe side, I called the TVA Police in Muscle Shoals and asked if it was legal to CCW in the recreational areas. The person I talked to wasn't very nice about the question. He seemed very upset that I would even ask about such a thing. He said "You better not be caught with a gun there".
Now I am confused. I wasn't able to find out exactly what Federal law or TVA regulation would make CCW there illegal so I decided to look it up on the internet. Well lo and behold the only info I could find was about some recreational areas in North East Tennessee and it said it was legal in some TVA recreational areas but not others but no general rules or regulations saying it was illegal in the recreational areas where I lived.
www.tva.gov/foia/code_of_conduct.pdf
Then I decided to contact the head of the TVA police and ask him. Of all things he did not know for sure right off the bat. The only thing he could point to was 18 USC § 930 which I cited in my first post. I then ask for clarification about what exactly was and was not a "Federal Facility" and he ( not knowing I had already contacted them ) told me to contact the Muscle Shoals office for more information.
Here is part of those emails:
The head of the TVA police does not know!!!
It seems I have stumbled upon one of those legal gray areas you encounter from time to time. The most I have found out is that there does not appear to be any case law regarding the correct definition of "Federal Facility" as defined in 18 USC § 930.
I am not ready or willing at now to be a test case to find out! I am hoping that there is someone who can authoritatively say one way or the other.
I believed that the person I talked to in Muscle Shoals who wasn't very nice was this Captain Kelly.
NavyLCDR
member
I believe that you are concentrating on the wrong part of 18 USC 930. Try concentrating on this part, instead:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000930----000-.html
(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.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000930----000-.html
(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.
mljdeckard
Member
I draw the line at where the 'secured' part is. If the lot is gated and posted, it is secure. If only the building itself is posted, I would leave it under the seat and shut up.
bushmaster1313
Member
A Post Office employee was recently fired for having a handgun in his car in the parking lot of a Post Office.
I think his firing was upheld on appeal but I am not sure.
I think his firing was upheld on appeal but I am not sure.
mljdeckard
Member
But that is an example of a violation of terms of employment. He was fired for not following the employee handbook, not prosecuted for breaking a law.
NavyLCDR
member
Well, Jelly Jar,
What you are going to find is that the boundaries of the Federal facility are going to be whatever the person in charge of the Federal facility decides they are. If the person in charge of that specific Facility says the parking lot is included, then they should post signs at the entrance to the parking lot, and that will be where the prohibition begins.
If that person only wants the building included, then they will post the entrance to the building.
The only definition you have to go by is included right there in the statute and the boundaries are defined by the required signs.
The post office operates under a CFR in addition to the USC, and the CFR says the post office only has to post a sign at "a conspicuous location". The CFR for the post office does not require posting at the entrances.
Concealed carry on college campuses in Texas will have no bearing on Federal facility laws.
What you are going to find is that the boundaries of the Federal facility are going to be whatever the person in charge of the Federal facility decides they are. If the person in charge of that specific Facility says the parking lot is included, then they should post signs at the entrance to the parking lot, and that will be where the prohibition begins.
If that person only wants the building included, then they will post the entrance to the building.
The only definition you have to go by is included right there in the statute and the boundaries are defined by the required signs.
The post office operates under a CFR in addition to the USC, and the CFR says the post office only has to post a sign at "a conspicuous location". The CFR for the post office does not require posting at the entrances.
Concealed carry on college campuses in Texas will have no bearing on Federal facility laws.
NavyLT
You may be right about the administrator of a Federal Facility having the power to determine the boundaries of a Federal Facility to include parking lots and such. That is why I started this thread. I would like to have a definitive definition of what constitutes a "Federal Facility" as per 18 USC § 930.
I believe the rules about weapons on Post Office grounds are governed by a different part of the US code, not 18 USC § 930 and that that codes does bar weapons in parking lots.
You may be right about the administrator of a Federal Facility having the power to determine the boundaries of a Federal Facility to include parking lots and such. That is why I started this thread. I would like to have a definitive definition of what constitutes a "Federal Facility" as per 18 USC § 930.
I believe the rules about weapons on Post Office grounds are governed by a different part of the US code, not 18 USC § 930 and that that codes does bar weapons in parking lots.
jfh
Member.
JellyJar: FWIW, you are not going to find that definitive definition. The reason is, simply, that such a definition really only exists where it has been codified in law, not in agency regulation. That is, even the laws on this subject are so poorly-written, or so ambiguous, or so conflicting, that until they are tested--and, arguably tested all the way to the USSC--you will see conflicting interpretations.
The pragmatic answer is what NavyLT offers. Far more of our laws are, on an anecdotal level, guidelines implemented differently.
Jim H.
The pragmatic answer is what NavyLT offers. Far more of our laws are, on an anecdotal level, guidelines implemented differently.
Jim H.
vtflatlander
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I retired from the US Postal Service 2 years ago. At the time we leased building space in an apartment (Residential) building. The parking lot was included in the no firearms regulation. We could not even have any type of weapon stored in the vehicle whild our vehicle was parked in the parking lot, and we were at work. If I was off duty on an off duty day and went to visit a tenant in the building it was okay for me to have a weapon. But if I was off duty after working and there had benn a weapon in my vehicle at the time I was working than I was not in compliance with the regulation. I would have to complete work leave the building drive my vehicle out of the lot and than I could return with a weapon and visit a tenant. The district I worked for was very strick on this regulation
vtflatlander
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2
I forgot to state that the postal service considers the building space and the number of spaces out in the parking lot for the number of workers at that building all as part of the federal building regulation since the postal service is paying rent for those parking spaces as well as space in the building.
green-grizzly
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 181
I think bushmaster1313 is referring to US v. Dorosan, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf, wherein the court held that a postal employee could not keep a pistol in his car in the parking lot. The regulation in question, 36 CFR 232.1(l), applies to all persons, not just postal employees:
Some argue that 18 USC 930 does not apply to the postal service, and that the postal service's authority to ban guns comes from some other statute. But the postal service appears to think otherwise.
The post office signs cite to this regulation as well as 18 USC 930, the federal facilities ban. So at least the postal service thinks parking lots are part of a federal facility.
Some argue that 18 USC 930 does not apply to the postal service, and that the postal service's authority to ban guns comes from some other statute. But the postal service appears to think otherwise.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
It does not appear that you will get an answer. I have been searching around and I found several multi-page documents from EPA and other agencies arguing with each other over what the definition of "federal facility" is.
So it apparently means whatever they want it to mean, which is why the signage rule is going to be what matters to us for purposes of the new NP carry etc.
I suspect you will find different definitions in the specific agencies rules. Post Office may define it one way, DoD another.
CoRoMo
Member
Sending an email letter would either be a complete success or utter failure in regards to this matter. I imagine they will either state that the law isn't clear enough, therefore parking lots and the surrounding areas are open for 2A access, or that it is all theirs and we can't even think about enjoying ourselves. A total win or a complete loss. Just my thought.
NavyLCDR
member
Jelly Jar,
The reply that you will receive is going to be that Federal facility is defined in 18 USC 930 as:
The term “Federal facility” means 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.
You can do whatever you want, but the simple answer is if you pass a sign required to be posted by 18 USC 930, you are in the prohibited zone. How hard is it to look for the sign?
By the way, the definition of "part thereof" is the area past the posted sign.
The reply that you will receive is going to be that Federal facility is defined in 18 USC 930 as:
The term “Federal facility” means 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.
You can do whatever you want, but the simple answer is if you pass a sign required to be posted by 18 USC 930, you are in the prohibited zone. How hard is it to look for the sign?
By the way, the definition of "part thereof" is the area past the posted sign.
Last edited:
jfh
Member.
...and, worse yet, given this AG and Administration, you may find a career employee who will be invigorated by such an inquiry to run this issue full-bore out into whatever expanded restriction they can get by with.
Perhaps I am wearing a tinfoil hat, but any antigun rumblings we have seen to date have been fairly deep. That's one way to read, for example, the latest airgun-machinegun confiscation. (Personally, I think it's a CYA by ATF and C&I after somebody goofed, but still....)
Jim H.
Perhaps I am wearing a tinfoil hat, but any antigun rumblings we have seen to date have been fairly deep. That's one way to read, for example, the latest airgun-machinegun confiscation. (Personally, I think it's a CYA by ATF and C&I after somebody goofed, but still....)
Jim H.
Last edited:
- Status
