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

[Timjoebillybob]

Last time I checked, legally laws have to be written so that that every day person can understand them.

See below.

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.

Blessings,
Bill

I was going to use that exact example. And it makes the point quite well. From what I understand to serve on the jury of an IRS

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.

I've had a deputy go to wave me around the metal detector going into a courthouse due to my attitude and dress. And I wasn't trying to get away with anything.

 

[JeffINGunner]

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.

Really how come? Refuse to enter without your weapon, if stopped and forbidden from entering, then turn around, walk out the door and never go back. If you were called to testify, then tell them you were refused entry for no reason whatsoever.

 

[JeffINGunner]

You know, its really funny, I was watching a program the other day called "Cocaine Cowboys" about the cocaine trade in South Florida in the 80's. The one thing that one of the smugglers said was how he threw off the drug dogs was to blend up a small amount of marijuana with oil until it was completely smooth, even mentioned he burned up hundreds of blenders because of this. Anyway, he would spray down all around the boat docks he was mooring at. That away if any of the drug dogs started sniffing around they couldnt figure out what was and what was not drugs. He said that he told his "partners" in Columbia to do this to EVERYTHING that was exported from Columbia and that would effectively render drug dogs 100% ineffective since they were unable to figure what was and what was not drugs because EVERYTHING was covered with the drug smell. Well what about that with going into these places that it is legal based upon the laws that are written, EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE carry a gun, not just 50 percent or 75 percent or even 90 percent, 100% of the people walking in, have their weapon and a copy of 18 US Code 930 with the pertinent sections highlighted.

I know that there will be some of you that say that they would arrest 100% of the people coming in, and to that I say nope, sorry would never happen, not enough federal, state, local, county, etc leos to arrest EVERYONE. So you effectively shut down the ability of them to Unconstitutionally stop you from entering a facility where the law already states that it is legal to do.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Once again, if you feel so strongly that you can get away with it, try to get through (not around) a federal checkpoint at a facility you dont have an access badge and prior clearance for and report back here how it goes.

Pretty much everybody here seems to agree that you are incorrect and are relying on a few passes where your access badge caused them to overlook you. Since you seem so convinced that the checkpoints are illegal, we need another Rosa Parks to have standing in order to sue to govt into honoring that federal law. Good luck to you sir.

With that being said, I'm out. Im beginning to think you are either delusional, or are a bit of a troll just looking for an argument. (or just have an inability to accept you could be wrong)

Please start a new thread with the results of your test. (and feel free to include the gofundme link for your legal defense fund )

 

[JeffINGunner]

Once again, if you feel so strongly that you can get away with it, try to get through (not around) a federal checkpoint at a facility you dont have an access badge and prior clearance for and report back here how it goes.

Pretty much everybody here seems to agree that you are incorrect and are relying on a few passes where your access badge caused them to overlook you. Since you seem so convinced that the checkpoints are illegal, we need another Rosa Parks to have standing in order to sue to govt into honoring that federal law. Good luck to you sir.

With that being said, I'm out. Im beginning to think you are either delusional, or are a bit of a troll just looking for an argument. (or just have an inability to accept you could be wrong)

Please start a new thread with the results of your test. (and feel free to include the gofundme link for your legal defense fund )

OK, so next time I have the opportunity to go by the federal building, I'll do just that. I can also go to the airport, walk onto the tarmac, into the hangar the houses the governors airplane, and snap a photo of me with the airplane if you like that also. Maybe climb aboard the State Police helo that is in the same hangar and snap a picture there also. You all seem to think I am full of crap, I assure you I am not full of crap, I have carried in every place I have mentioned, and I will continue to carry in these places because, well guess what... it is LEGAL!

 

[Cameramonkey]

its now official.

 

[JeffINGunner]

its now official.

You can call me a troll, that's fine, but next time I go by the federal building I will make sure to go thru the checkpoint. I will also make sure to get a couple of photos at the airport. I think I will be over there this week... Ill take a selfie with the governors plane and the state police helo.

Oh and I am neither delusional, a troll, or breaking ANY laws.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, you already established, though THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED to do those things because of your employer. Oh, and perhaps I missed it, who is that again? You are part of the Eloi. Better than the rest of us. If you really think it is "legal" for the rest of us, you are delusional.

Or, to put it another way, ever OC'd in the post office and asked if it was ok? I mean, if it is legal, then they'll say "yes" right?

 

[JeffINGunner]

Yes, you already established, though THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED to do those things because of your employer. Oh, and perhaps I missed it, who is that again? You are part of the Eloi. Better than the rest of us. If you really think it is "legal" for the rest of us, you are delusional.

Or, to put it another way, ever OC'd in the post office and asked if it was ok? I mean, if it is legal, then they'll say "yes" right?

I have NO special privileges because of my employer, so I have a all access credential, that, from what everyone else on here has said, does not grant me any special waivers to any laws. Oh wait, the waiver is 18 US code 930 Section (d) 3 does, which IS the law.

As for my employer, I work for the state. No, not law enforcement, not even remotely involved with law enforcement. Heck, the signage on the outside of the local state police headquarters even states that it is illegal to carry concealed into the facility, so what do I do, I uncover when I go there, which is fairly frequently. There, perfectly legal.

Also the last time I checked, I am not from the future, so I am not ab Eloi.

Also in checking, and I know that this was started because of SCOTUS refusing to hear a case of allowing weapons upon postal property, hmmm well there is another "law" that is around, and that is 39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

So in reading this "law" it says the following:

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to—

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

(h) Soliciting, electioneering, collecting debts, vending, and advertising.
(1) Soliciting alms and contributions, campaigning for election to any public office, collecting private debts, soliciting and vending for commercial purposes (including, but not limited to, the vending of newspapers and other publications), displaying or distributing commercial advertising, collecting signatures on petitions, polls, or surveys (except as otherwise authorized by Postal Service regulations), are prohibited. These prohibitions do not apply to:
(i) Commercial or nonprofit activities performed under contract with the Postal Service or pursuant to the provisions of the Randolph-Sheppard Act;
(ii) Posting notices on bulletin boards as authorized in § 243.2(a) of this chapter;
(iii) The solicitation of Postal Service and other Federal military and civilian personnel for contributions by recognized agencies as authorized under Executive Order 12353, of March 23, 1982.

(o) Depositing literature. Depositing or posting handbills, flyers, pamphlets, signs, poster, placards, or other literature, except official postal and other Governmental notices and announcements, on the grounds, walks, driveways, parking and maneuvering areas, exteriors of buildings and other structures, or on the floors, walls, stairs, racks, counters, desks, writing tables, window-ledges, or furnishings in interior public areas on postal premises, is prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to:
(1) Posting notices on bulletin boards as authorized in § 243.2(a) of this chapter;
(2) Interior space assigned to tenants for their exclusive use;
(3) Posting of notices by U.S. Government-related organizations, such as the Inaugural Committee as defined in 36 U.S.C. 501.

So lets look at this particular section of the "law"

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

The last time I checked, CFR's are NOT laws, hence the reason I put the word law in quotes before. Congress did NOT pass this "law" it is nothing more than a Code of Federal Regulations.

 

[Bill of Rights]

its now official.

While I agree with you that his posts carry many of the "markers" I'd use to identify trolling behavior, let's not wrap around the axle of namecalling that would require mod involvement of a more specific nature, shall we?

Jeff,
If you are planning to do this without using your access badge, employment, etc., to include any sort of LE credential to which you might have access, the normal internet standard of proof is "pics or it didn't happen." Given your posts and your eagerness to post those pics, if you want to avoid the whole "that was photoshopped!" thing, you may wish to make contact with one of our INGO members who is known by the members to be a LEO, to be present and verify the events as truthful.

I'm not disparaging your comments to say the above, merely pointing out that any inconsistency in the images would quickly cast doubt on your version of what happened.

Unofficially, I think your stated position is both argumentative and foolhardy, and I think that barring any special consideration given to some specific role you hold, you will at a minimum find yourself facing a judge over your actions.

You say you will not. I will never encourage anyone to take action that I believe will violate the law. If you are correct, however, and this is not a violation (as every attorney involved in the thread has told you it is), this is information our members should have.

Until there is independent, known verification of this as fact, however, I strongly urge everyone out there not to attempt to follow the advice of this member (JeffINGunner).

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Woobie]

Whocares, is that you?

 

[JeffINGunner]

While I agree with you that his posts carry many of the "markers" I'd use to identify trolling behavior, let's not wrap around the axle of namecalling that would require mod involvement of a more specific nature, shall we?

Jeff,
If you are planning to do this without using your access badge, employment, etc., to include any sort of LE credential to which you might have access, the normal internet standard of proof is "pics or it didn't happen." Given your posts and your eagerness to post those pics, if you want to avoid the whole "that was photoshopped!" thing, you may wish to make contact with one of our INGO members who is known by the members to be a LEO, to be present and verify the events as truthful.

I'm not disparaging your comments to say the above, merely pointing out that any inconsistency in the images would quickly cast doubt on your version of what happened.

Unofficially, I think your stated position is both argumentative and foolhardy, and I think that barring any special consideration given to some specific role you hold, you will at a minimum find yourself facing a judge over your actions.

You say you will not. I will never encourage anyone to take action that I believe will violate the law. If you are correct, however, and this is not a violation (as every attorney involved in the thread has told you it is), this is information our members should have.

Until there is independent, known verification of this as fact, however, I strongly urge everyone out there not to attempt to follow the advice of this member (JeffINGunner).

Blessings,
Bill

Again, not trying to argue, but how can ANY lawyer say, after reading federal LAW that specifically spells out an allowance for the carrying of arms incident to HUNTING or OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES on federal property that it is illegal? I mean yea I am not a very smart person, but I can read, I dont need a law degree to read what something says that is as plain as the paper it is written on.

Oh and again, I have NO law enforcement credentials, yes, I do have credentials that allow me unfettered access to damned near anywhere in the state, but as has been spelled out numerous times in this thread that in of itself does NOT give me any special privileges to carry a weapon where that weapon is not legally allowed. No, I have never carried into a court room, or a jail.

As for having to prove anything, I am under no obligation to provide any proof of anything that I have said, or done, I have no obligation to have some LEO prove what I said it true, because EVERYTHING I have stated in this thread is completely true, I know it, God knows it, and that is just the way it is.

So, can I go and take some selfies sure, I will try and do that next time I am there as I stated before. I still want to know how I am being told something is illegal when it is specifically written where it is not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

 

[JeffINGunner]

Whocares, is that you?

HUh?

 

[vitamink]

HUh?

He's a member here. A cop stole his wallet. He got locked up and he ain't even did nothing. It's an old thread reference.

 

[T.Lex]

I have NO special privileges because of my employer, so I have a all access credential, that, from what everyone else on here has said, does not grant me any special waivers to any laws. Oh wait, the waiver is 18 US code 930 Section (d) 3 does, which IS the law.

As for my employer, I work for the state. No, not law enforcement, not even remotely involved with law enforcement. Heck, the signage on the outside of the local state police headquarters even states that it is illegal to carry concealed into the facility, so what do I do, I uncover when I go there, which is fairly frequently. There, perfectly legal.

So, I'm going to hazard a guess that you work for DHS and have the laundry with those letters on it. Or a related agency. Heck you could be a computer tech and still have the jacket and t-shirt with the right acronym on it.

Second, at a certain level you are confusing legality with the ability to not get caught.

So lets look at this particular section of the "law"

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

The last time I checked, CFR's are NOT laws, hence the reason I put the word law in quotes before. Congress did NOT pass this "law" it is nothing more than a Code of Federal Regulations.

Yes, let's look at that. With your magic badge, TPTB will assume you are there for official purposes. Or, from institutional courtesy, will give you a pass.

Oh, and the CFR? That's what agencies use to tell us how they are going to define and enforce certain things. They are not "laws" but they basically have the rule of law. Plenty of EPA defendants can testify to that.

 

[JeffINGunner]

So, I'm going to hazard a guess that you work for DHS and have the laundry with those letters on it. Or a related agency. Heck you could be a computer tech and still have the jacket and t-shirt with the right acronym on it.

Second, at a certain level you are confusing legality with the ability to not get caught.


Yes, let's look at that. With your magic badge, TPTB will assume you are there for official purposes. Or, from institutional courtesy, will give you a pass.

Oh, and the CFR? That's what agencies use to tell us how they are going to define and enforce certain things. They are not "laws" but they basically have the rule of law. Plenty of EPA defendants can testify to that.

Ahhh ok, I got you, then I guess some flunkie at the Post Office could come up with a CFR that stated it was against the reg to say good morning to the person across the counter and if you did you would be subject to a million dollar fine and a year in jail... Yea Right... Oh and the last time I checked, CFR's carry a $50 fine and a possible 30 days in jail... Again doubtful...

 

[jamil]

 

[Woobie]

All I can say is, I hope you win your test case.

 

[HoughMade]