Can I carry where prohibited if?

[Guest Catfish36]

Inside a locked safe would be a major improvement.

YMMV, but I usually leave an AK on the dashboard with an extra mag stuck in the 8-track player...

I see you went with the Oldsmobile...my PawPaw was always an Oldsmobile fan..and for the record he is the one who gave me the nickname Catfish..lol

[Fallguy]

There's probably a law that specifies punishment for breaking a rule. It's all very Orwellian/Ayn Randish.

- OS

Sort of what I figure...

[rgaper]

I see you went with the Oldsmobile...my PawPaw was always an Oldsmobile fan..and for the record he is the one who gave me the nickname Catfish..lol

Nope. It's a linked photo from the safe manufacturer's website.

[Guest WyattEarp]

To my knowledge however, federal law can only ban weapons in federal BUILDINGS, not parking lots or other lands, though they could post a TCA compliant sign for parking lot too; but this wouldn't have penal repercussions in most states. I guess there is some additional law about military installations, but have never read it. - OS

FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS

Prior to these cases,Congress enacted and Presidents have signed laws regarding the possession of firearms: the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Under federal law, an American citizen (and certain legal aliens, see later sections) may possess firearms and ammunition on his person, in his home, in his business, and in his vehicle during intrastate and interstate travel, except: a. Inside or on federal property, § 930, exceptions exist. b. Inside an airliner’s cabin, 49 U.S.C. § 46505. c. Before delivering a firearm or ammunition to a common or contract carrier (e.g., bus, airline) for transportation in interstate or foreign commerce to a non-licensee the person must first notify the carrier in writing that the firearm or ammo is present, 922e. d. In or within 1,000 feet of a school zone, 922 (q), exceptions exist. e. May not send concealable firearms through the U.S. mail, § 1715, exceptions exist.

Subchapter C -- Real Property

§102-74.440—What is the policy concerning weapons on Federal property?

Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C. 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.

DHS | Code of Conduct - Federal Facilities Owned and Leased by the General Services Administration

§ 102-74.440 What is the policy concerning weapons on Federal property? Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C. 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.

I found this in a thread on another forum where they were arguing about the parking lot being a part of the facility or not a part of the facility.

Does Federal Facilities also include parking lots? - THR this was one of the replies (however, the link seems to be dead)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000930----000-.html (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and ( 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.

so basically, at the VA Hospitals in Murfreesboro and Nashville, they have signs at all the entrances that strictly forbid firearms on the premises and they state as such, then that means in the parking lots or anywhere on that property that is designated as federal property. seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Edited December 20, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Oh Shoot]

a. Inside or on federal property, § 930, exceptions exist.

Ya gotta quit giving credence to something just because it's written on the net.

There is no such verbiage as "inside or on federal property" in 18 USC 930 - Sec. 930 (Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities)

Says inside a federal facility. A federal facility is defined in the same statute as a building or part thereof...

There is nothing in Section 930 that authorizes the federal government to ban dangerous weapons on federal property in general, only in buildings and a federal court (which is described as obviously being inside a building also).

- OS

[Guest WyattEarp]

Ya gotta quit giving credence to something just because it's written on the net.

There is no such verbiage as "inside or on federal property" in 18 USC 930 - Sec. 930 (Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities)

Says inside a federal facility. A federal facility is defined in the same statute as a building or part thereof...

There is nothing in Section 930 that authorizes the federal government to ban dangerous weapons on federal property in general, only in buildings and a federal court (which is described as obviously being inside a building also).

- OS

i dont think you read the whole post.

at the very very bottom of my post, I said

"so basically, at the VA Hospitals in Murfreesboro and Nashville, they have signs at all the entrances that strictly forbid firearms on the premises and they state as such, then that means in the parking lots or anywhere on that property that is designated as federal property. seems pretty cut and dry to me."

so if they don't want it on their property, that's their right to say so, just as it's a business owners right to say they don't want to allow carry in their stores, and if they post it, then it's law and you can be prosecuted for violating it. The VA postings say "No weapons on the premises". Next time I'm over there, I'll take a picture and post it up in this thread.

[Oh Shoot]

i dont think you read the whole post.

at the very very bottom of my post, I said

"so basically, at the VA Hospitals in Murfreesboro and Nashville, they have signs at all the entrances that strictly forbid firearms on the premises and they state as such, then that means in the parking lots or anywhere on that property that is designated as federal property. seems pretty cut and dry to me."

so if they don't want it on their property, that's their right to say so, just as it's a business owners right to say they don't want to allow carry in their stores, and if they post it, then it's law and you can be prosecuted for violating it. The VA postings say "No weapons on the premises". Next time I'm over there, I'll take a picture and post it up in this thread.

I read the whole post.

Just responding to the part you quoted regarding the federal law, which was patently inaccurate.

As far as posting the whole property, they can do that under TN law. You can debate whether how they do that is statutorily compliant or not, but they can do it, and it'll be up to LEO/judge as to whether it's compliant enough if charged under the state law. So, in the parking lot you could be charged under state law, and in the building you could be charged under both state and federal law.

The fallacy with this part on the VA's part is that TN is about the only state that has a penalty for the mere act of carrying past a sign in places where the federal statute does not address, so if they're posting the parking lots in other states, it carries no weight under state or federal law.

- OS

[Guest WyattEarp]

I read the whole post.

Just responding to the part you quoted regarding the federal law, which was patently inaccurate.

As far as posting the whole property, they can do that under TN law. You can debate whether how they do that is statutorily compliant or not, but they can do it, and it'll be up to LEO/judge as to whether it's compliant enough if charged under the state law. So, in the parking lot you could be charged under state law, and in the building you could be charged under both state and federal law.

The fallacy with this part on the VA's part is that TN is about the only state that has a penalty for the mere act of carrying past a sign in places where the federal statute does not address, so if they're posting the parking lots in other states, it carries no weight under state or federal law.

- OS

ok, just wanted to make sure.

I'll just take what they posted at face value, because i have neither the money, nor the time to push the issue and find out. So my rule of thumb is, they posted no, I'm gonna respect that.

as for this

Says inside a federal facility. A federal facility is defined in the same statute as a building or part thereof...

so the "or part thereof"...if the sidewalk is connected to the facility, wouldn't that be a part "thereof"? and if it is, and the sidewalk is connected to the parking lot, then would not the parking lot be considered a "part thereof", since it's connected to the sidewalk, which is connected to the building.

I agree, that this could be cleared up by further definition, but in that thread on the Highroad Forum, there's a guy that goes on to state that "the thereof is any part past the sign".

[Oh Shoot]

...

so the "or part thereof"...if the sidewalk is connected to the facility, wouldn't that be a part "thereof"? and if it is, and the sidewalk is connected to the parking lot, then would not the parking lot be considered a "part thereof", since it's connected to the sidewalk, which is connected to the building. ...

No, sigh -- as I suggested, read the statute. Rest of sentence is "owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal

employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

Unless the VA personnel regularly set up their desks and operating rooms in the parking lot and on the sidewalks, I'd posit this doesn't fit the definition.

And no, federal employees do not mow the grass or pave the parking lot, either.

Although the "building or part thereof" is logically and I'd say rather obviously meant to cover places where the feds lease only part of a building.

- OS

Edited December 20, 2011 by OhShoot