Weapons in federal facilities?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tony k

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
762
I was at a Forest Service Office the other day, and saw a prominent posting that stated that firearms and other dangerous weapons are not permitted in federal facilities except as under subsection (d) of 18USC930. I looked it up. Here's what 18USC930 says (emphasis added):

§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(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.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(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;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

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


(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

(g) As used in this section:

(1) 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.

(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.


(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.

The way I read this little exception: "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." sugggests to me that, in a non-courthouse federal facility, if you can carry as you normally would.

This goes against everything I've heard about weapons in federal facilities. Further, I've done some searching on this and other forums, and nobody ever mentions subsection d, item 3.

Again, the way I read this is that if you can legally possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon, you can bring it in to any federal facility except courthouses.

Can anyone clarify this for me?
 
Regarding subsection d(3), is self-defense a "lawful purpose"?

Beyond that, I suspect we are about to start another round of "The 2A says..." that can't be settled without another test case making to it to SCOTUS.
 
You may find the discussion in this thread useful:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=745363

Including this quote from Frank Ettin:

Unless and until someone can cite a controlling federal court of appeals decision expressly ruling that "official purposes" in 39 CFR 232.1 and "other lawful purposes" in 18 USC 930 includes a private citizen's routine lawful carrying of a conceal gun, we have no good reason to assume that a court will do so in the future.
 
You may find the discussion in this thread useful:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=745363

Including this quote from Frank Ettin:

Quote:
Unless and until someone can cite a controlling federal court of appeals decision expressly ruling that "official purposes" in 39 CFR 232.1 and "other lawful purposes" in 18 USC 930 includes a private citizen's routine lawful carrying of a conceal gun, we have no good reason to assume that a court will do so in the future.

Thanks, not sure how I missed this thread in my searches. Still pretty vague between the actual law and the CFRs associated with it.
 
Why not "clarify" for yourself? Call you local DEA office. Even the Justice Dept. Get it from the horses mouth. J s/n.
 
There's been some discussion on various gun boards in Texas as to whether or not the " . . . lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." exception would allow for the licensed concealed carry of a firearm for lawful self defense, particularly in the context of post offices.

A reasonable man would look at the plain meaning and say yes, the exception carries weight; however, courts and juries are not necessarily comprised of reasonable men. Prevailing legal opinion seems to come down on the side of "don't carry" but unless and until there's established case law specific to post office carry in Texas by a CHL holder, we really don't know what the law really means. Which is maddening.

For what it's worth, I, for one, have no intention of becoming a test case.
 
I see your point, but I happen to work for the Forest Service.

If you came in with a firearm, and it is posted on the door that firearms are prohibited, you will be informed that you are not to have a firearm in the building. You would be asked to leave or at the very least, remove the gun from the building. The PARKING LOT is perfectly fine, and I have in fact left firearms in my vehicle during the work day because I intended to travel to the closest city after my workday was over.

If you were to make any sort of argument that what you are doing is legal, rather than immediately complying, one of two things would happen.

1. 911 will be called and you will be removed from the building, and then be involved in federal prosecution (right or wrong).

2. If the LEO stationed in my building happens to be in his office, you will be talked to by him, which may involve a major incident, along with federal charges.

Like I said, I see your point, and I think it is worded poorly. I THINK, I don't know, but I THINK the intent was to allow for a bit of wiggle room on the law. If someone comes in who is permitted to own, and carry a firearm by law for purposes of whatever does so it gives the office personnel the right to inform them of their flub, and allow them to fix the situation without having to prosecute.

I may be wrong on my interpretation of the intent of that section, so do not consider me to be an authority on the subject or consider my words as advice. They are not.

I'm just telling you what would happen in my office. I live in a very gun friendly place, but no firearms signs are clearly posted.

My only advice is don't test it. If you are prosecuted, the point you are making could tumble back on you.
 
What would the "incident to hunting" part mean?
The best example I can think of involves this totally hypothetical scenario.

Local guys are hunting using a UTV rather than a pickup, which is common. They stop in to my office for a map of the National Forest, but do not want to leave their firearms in the open cab UTV unsecured. So they come in to talk to our front desk folks and get said map, with rifles slung, and side arms strapped on.

They were getting a map on their way to hunt. Incidentally, they were armed as they had no good way to secure their firearms. I would hope in that case, they would be given the info they need, informed that they should not be armed in a fed building, and they would go on their way without any prosecution.

I look at it as if they are open carrying, they are very very likely a legal owner. But I am gun friendly and logical. The bureaucracy is not.

Hell, I still can't believe I am expected to go to the woods alone all the time, in the middle of nowhere, with no sidearm at all. I'm ok with doing it, but we talk about safety all the time in the government. How safe is it to send people away from pretty much any source of help, with no means to defend their lives from animals and nut jobs?

What am I supposed to use, harsh language? And for these reasons, I duck when I see a vehicle coming, and keep a very large pocket knife on me all the time. Remaining unseen is my only REAL defense when working in the woods.

My work is worth the risk though, as I consider it a calling.
 
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

I'll give you two examples of "other lawful purposes," from my own experience:

1. As a member of a civilian gun club, I used to shoot at a range in a building on the Ft. Myer South Post (across the highway from the Pentagon).

2. I was invited to bring my privately-owned M60 machine gun for a (blank) firing demonstration for the veterans at the Soldiers' Home in the District.

These activities were all done by pre-arrangement. In fact, I was very reluctant to bring a full automatic weapon into the District, until I got "permission slips" from both the federal and the District authorities.

Routine carrying for self-defense in a federal facility is a good way to get into trouble.
 
Alexander has a couple of good examples. Another is the Post Office - they're specifically exempt from 18USC930 provisions concerning firearms. They've developed their own regulations covering weapons carry, and for what it's worth a court ruled a year or two ago that their restrictions didn't apply to their parking lots, only their "facilities". Another example is my agency (which will not be named) - we're also exempt from 18USC930, but the regulations the agency has developed are a LOT more restrictive and they specifically DO cover our parking lots. Like several have mentioned, you probably don't want to be the test case for any of this.
 
Privately owned firearms are prohibited on military installations. However, my local installation, has a mechanism for anyone to bring a target handgun, rifle or shotgun on post for use at a MWR facility. Stop at the gate office, go inside and "register" your guns with the provost marshal rep. Leave the guns outside. You will be give a registration form with your gun enumerated by caliber and serial number which will allow you to proceed on post with your guns. Unloaded and cased of course.
 
"Hell, I still can't believe I am expected to go to the woods alone all the time, in the middle of nowhere, with no sidearm at all"

G(1) defines federal facility as a building where employees work so the woods are fine if you are legal to carry otherwise.

Section H was interesting to me since I have noticed that many post office entrances do not have any prohibition posted. H says nobody will be prosecuted if the prohibition is not posted. Then i see cologuy says usps is exempt so this may be a moot point.
 
USPS are considered the same as federal courthouses.
No gun zones. Even some issues with having a gun in the parking lot. It's rather fuzzy.
Just because its not posted doesn't mean its fine. Federal property is handled differently from private.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top