18 US Code 930 - Posession of Firearms and dangerous weapons in federal faciliti

[T.Lex]

...I do have a all access 24/7 badge that grants me access anywhere and everywhere, but laws should trump my badge. ....

Nope 333 Scott St in Covington is a federal facilty, there were federal LEO's manning the "magnetic machines" that I walked right past while carrying a S/W 4046.

Can you elaborate on this magic badge?

I mean, is it something anyone of us plebes can get?

 

[JeffINGunner]

Looking at ownership records for 3333, IRS doesnt own the building, they lease space from a non govt entity. Grey area?

Well, like I said, there were federal LEO's manning the machines, and there was a big Federal Facility banning the carrying of weapons upon the property sign on the door. I did a quick seach saw I was legal, then walked right on in.

 

[JeffINGunner]

Can you elaborate on this magic badge?

I mean, is it something anyone of us plebes can get?

Come to work where I work, and you too can get a magic access badge.

 

[T.Lex]

Come to work where I work, and you too can get a magic access badge.

Where is that, so that I might apply?

 

[HoughMade]

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, right?

 

[T.Lex]

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, right?

Do we have any choice?

 

[JeffINGunner]

Why is it so hard to understand basic English?

"Incident to hunting" Well I'm not hunting so that is out. "Or other lawful purposes" Well a lawful purpose of carrying a weapon is for self defense. Unless someone is breaking the law, then the carrying of a weapon indent to "other lawful purposes" is the exception to the law. Pretty easy to understand.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. So you had a magic badge that explained to the federales that you were there for a lawful purpose, so you avoided both curbstomping and disarmament. And that makes this thread about.... what exactly? We should all be treated that way?

Ok.

Yes. We should.

 

[JeffINGunner]

I just looked at another google streets view of 333 Scott St in Covington, and I no longer see the federal building signage on the doors. It may have changed hands since the last time I was there, like I said it has been a few years ago.

 

[HoughMade]

Why is it so hard to understand basic English?

"Incident to hunting" Well I'm not hunting so that is out. "Or other lawful purposes" Well a lawful purpose of carrying a weapon is for self defense. Unless someone is breaking the law, then the carrying of a weapon indent to "other lawful purposes" is the exception to the law. Pretty easy to understand.

At least one court has interpreted that provision to mean that the other "lawful purpose" must be connected with why you are at the federal facility. In other words, a lawful activity at the federal facility that requires a firearm.

I understand. You don't believe it means that. Maybe a court would agree with you. Maybe not.

You started the thread essentially accusing everyone who did not believe in your view of this of being an idiot. Fine. the problem is, your personal interpretation doesn't carry the day in a court where this issue would be decided. Further, your personal interpretation is not the only possible interpretation. Again, maybe the court would see it your way, but dial back the "you people just don't understand." We understand. We also know how the system works. Pardon me if I don't bet a year of my life on your anecdotal experience.

 

[Cameramonkey]

At least one court has interpreted that provision to mean that the other "lawful purpose" must be connected with why you are at the federal facility. In other words, a lawful activity at the federal facility that requires a firearm.

I understand. You don't believe it means that. Maybe a court would agree with you. Maybe not.

You started the thread essentially accusing everyone who did not believe in your view of this of being an idiot. Fine. the problem is, your personal interpretation doesn't carry the day in a court where this issue would be decided. Further, your personal interpretation is not the only possible interpretation. Again, maybe the court would see it your way, but dial back the "you people just don't understand." We understand. We also know how the system works. Pardon me if I don't bet a year of my life on your anecdotal experience.

THIS. You know how we would possibly take your word? If you had proof that you, as Joe Blow going through the checkpoint having legitimate business there such as paying a tax bill, convinced the deputies that you were allowed to pass due to 18USC.

Instead you claim access based solely on 18USC when in fact you are granted access based on a govt issued ID granting you specific access. Remember Correlation does not equal causation.

My money is you waltzed past based on your elevated access. *IF* a deputy noticed your sidearm, He probably assumed a LEO badge was associated with it and you were carrying as part of your business there. (he probably didnt notice because he was too busy paying attention to the plebes who cant walk around the cehckpoint) You'd be surprised what you can get away with if you look confident enough. Watch the movie Catch Me If You Can. Another example is we had a guy who would walk into businesses in a suit like he belonged there, and nobody challenged him because they made assumptions. He then went around stealing wallets from unattended purses in the offices.

Hell, I cant even get past the checkpoints with a screwdriver, yet my buddy who works in that state building can carry a pocket knife and go around.

 

[hopper68]

Just one pic would silence the troll talk.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You are making the mistake of assuming that the arresting, prosecuting and judicial officers will is the "plain meaning" of the phrase in deciding the fate of anyone who takes that exception at face value.

And there we have it.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b4fc84-1281-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html


Man arrested in downtown Spokane for carrying firearm on Federal - Spokane, North Idaho News & Weather KHQ.com

Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot, judge rules | Fox News

 

[actaeon277]

Man, 69, accused of bringing loaded gun into federal building - Chicago Tribune

 

[MarkC]

State LEO's, such as Indiana State Police officers, in uniform, are required to disarm and check their weapons at the security point of the US Courthouse in Indianapolis, when entering to testify in federal court. That would, on its face, seem to fit with a "lawful purpose." They should also be allowed to enter under 18 USC 930 (d)(1) (law enforcement officers). However, I was not ready to argue with a deputy US Marshal who was enforcing the will (and court order) of the chief judge for the Southern District of Indiana.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow. Maybe OP knew this was coming?

High court rejects appeal over ban on guns at post offices - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.

 

[GIJEW]

IANAL either, but regarding what the OP said about laws have to be written so that they can be understood by the public, what the concept of "lenity"? Doesn't that say that if the law is vague and the defendant could have reasonably thought he was within the law, that that is an "affirmative defense"--at least the first time?

 

[Bill of Rights]

IANAL either, but regarding what the OP said about laws have to be written so that they can be understood by the public, what the concept of "lenity"? Doesn't that say that if the law is vague and the defendant could have reasonably thought he was within the law, that that is an "affirmative defense"--at least the first time?

I don't know about that either way, but if anyone thinks that all laws must be written so the average person can understand them, try reading the US Tax code. Just one example, but I think it makes the point. The original intent was that all laws conform to that standard, but over 230+ years, we've moved away from it. I do agree that we've done so to our detriment, but the fact is beyond question that we have apparently, as a society, abandoned that standard.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't know about that either way, but if anyone thinks that all laws must be written so the average person can understand them, try reading the US Tax code. Just one example, but I think it makes the point. The original intent was that all laws conform to that standard, but over 230+ years, we've moved away from it. I do agree that we've done so to our detriment, but the fact is beyond question that we have apparently, as a society, abandoned that standard.

Blessings,
Bill

Lawyers be lawyerin'.

In fairness, most any profession develops jargon over time and becomes it's own language. We live in a complex society, it's not in anyway surprising that attempts to regulate it become complex as well.