OC outside Fed building - discussion about INSIDE a Fed Bldg.

[Lord Sega]

Article LINK

The story in itself is interesting, but when I followed the article's link to 18 U.S. Code § 930 to verify Mr. Bosworth was indeed in the clear I noticed something...


Question for lawyers: from the article link to 18 U.S. Code § 930...

"(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—"
...
"(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

Since the SCOTUS rulings of Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, where owning and carrying a firearm is an individual right at the core of 2A and it applies to the states as well as the federal government... would not "carrying for self-defense" be an "other lawful purpose" and thus be an exemption to:

"(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."

Mr. Bosworth is obviously clear for carrying ON the grounds, but not IN a federal facility, but it sounds like (d) (3) would allow carrying IN a federal facility as well, or it could be argued so.

Note, this does not include federal court facilities as defined in (g) (3).

Thoughts and input from lawyer types?

 

[Lord Sega]

Note: Grapeshot has a post about the primary article HERE

My post is about carry IN Federal buildings (that are not courts) per 18 U.S. Code § 930 (d) (3).

Just to clarify / stay on topic and not mix the two postings...

 

[skidmark]

There are too many threads regarding this as it applies to Post Offices to even bother counting. Suggest you find and read them to catch up on the current state of affairs.

stay safe.

 

[SovereigntyOrDeath]

Note: Grapeshot has a post about the primary article HERE

My post is about carry IN Federal buildings (that are not courts) per 18 U.S. Code § 930 (d) (3).

Just to clarify / stay on topic and not mix the two postings...

I open carried into the Post Falls Idaho post office and had no issues at all. It is a federal building on federal land. I had no idea it was against federal law to OC.

What I am trying to say is it depends on where you are. Idaho passed Senate Bill 1332

"any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state,"

So, did I unknowingly break the law, yes. I was not hassled or given a second look.

 

[Lord Sega]

This OP is not in reference to Post Offices. As far as post offices go, it looks like 18 USC 930 doesn't apply and that 39 CFR 232.1 apparently takes over. See LINK

SCOTUS in Heller did say that the government has the right to regulate firearms in government buildings (i.e. sensitive areas).

However, the government's regulation is 18 USC 930.
SCOTUS also stated that carry for self-defense in case of confrontation is a 2A core right.
So, in the government's regulation 18 USC 930 part (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to: (3) "the lawful carrying of firearms ... incident to ... other lawful purposes".
This should (in my humble non-lawyer opinion) apply as an exemption to 18 USC 930 (a).

Am I missing something here?

EDIT: all I can see is that although 18 USC 930 does not apply, like the Post Office link explanation, every Federal building would/could have a separate rule/regulation specific to the Federal Agency located in the building that would apply to firearm carry.

 

[MAC702]

Correct in that Post Offices are a whole different set of rules. They are not "federal facilities."

And yes, I've always been of the opinion that "incident to ... lawful purposes" was the green light to everyone not being a bad guy. The hard part is people's (even those who are on "our side") not seeing it that way. It needs clarification by a good court.

 

[mikeyb]

I suppose another example would be:

Visiting National Parks, and touring some of the interactive exhibits, like homestead cabins or the first-ever ranger station. It's a federal building, but if you're in bear country and have a firearm to dissuade a bear from eating you for lunch, this exemption would/should apply.

To refute "oh, bears stay away from humans" argument of the keyboard soccer moms (obvs not on this site)... a bear stuck its head inside a tent in a particularly crowded campground. We all wondered why, in the morning, a bunch of people were leaving with tents thrown in the back, still setup.

The bigger question would be, why are firearms banned from federal buildings at all? I mean, it is the gov't for the people, by the people, right?