PhillySoldier
New member
I was referring to civilian life and not actual military bases. At the time though I worked as a Correctional Officer so Im stressing to remember if it was a something they offered to all civilians or not
Inability to legally carry on federal property
- Thread starter SmiddySW
- Start date
I was referring to civilian life and not actual military bases. At the time though I worked as a Correctional Officer so Im stressing to remember if it was a something they offered to all civilians or not
niceshootintex
New member
Unless you live in on base housing, barracks, or RV camping areas and check firearms into an armory (if they have one) then carrying a gun on your person or vehicle is not allowed. No base I was ever stationed on ever allowed it and I use the VA a lot and it is strictly prohibited as are knives of any kind. As far as federal buildings, courthouses, etc... forget it. Tmaca is very correct in his post. Don't even think about carry on any federal properties or lands.
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
What about National Parks? Those are Federal lands.
niceshootintex
New member
Good point and my recollection is based on a RV trip three years ago so forgive any holes based on my discussion with a couple of Park Rangers. National Parks are a deviation of sorts. They roll up their firearms permissions into a 50 state agreement that requires a firearm to be cased and unloaded for the purposes of transporting through a park or while camping there. The exceptions in two cases are both to ALLOW hunting. First being that a loaded firearm is permitted for hunting during a specific period for a specific species but no loaded firearms in vehicles ever or loaded and outside of vehicle out of season. Second, a concealed and loaded firearm is legal with a valid permit from the state of origin and that rule only applies for specific seasons and species and also does not apply during primitive weapon or chase only hunting seasons. I don't remember why (blue laws?) but since there is no hunting allowed on Sundays ever, no loaded firearms are ever allowed on Sundays. So they are more lenient than courthouses, correctional facilities, VA hospital etc... but only as it relates to hunting. Clear as mud right?
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
This is the exact reason why I tend to speak out when people post things thought to be law, when it actually isn't (like FOPA not requiring ammo and gun to be in separate containers). We have enough restrictions in statutes that do exist, we as the gun community certainly do not be needing to promote restrictions that do not exist.
Since February 20, 2010, 7 years ago, Federal firearms regulations in National Parks was dropped. There is no difference in firearms laws when you pass through the gate to a National Park. The state laws of whatever state you happen to be in, even though on National Park land, applies. Buildings in the National Park which have NPS employees performing their regular duties must be posted with the sign required by 18 USC 930 declaring that the prohibition of firearms in Federal facilities applies to that building.
What the New Law Says
The new law allowing guns in national parks was created as part of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which was approved by Congress and President Barack Obama. It took effect Feb. 22, 2010. Here is the partial text of Section 512, Protecting Americans from Violent Crimes:
“Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System—The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if—(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.”
Source: https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/management/upload/Firearms-in-IMRparks2-2010.pdf
PhillySoldier
New member
Absolutely NOT unless the parking lot is on a shared property such as being inside a strip mall.
Yup. In most cases the highest ranking commander on an army post is most often not the post commander. The guy in charge of the place is usually a full colonel, but there is usually a tenant unit whose commander is some level of a general officer. The philosophy behind that is that a general has better things to do than worry about roads, maintenance, housing, facility security, and other "town government" kinds of things. The generals run and/or staff the military units, and a colonel handles the "town government" and housekeeping. Overseas the position. at least in the Army, is usually callled installation commander.
US Parks: One big deal with the no guns in federal parks bit was that part of the highway system in Virginia next to DC runs through a national park, causing a lot of controversy because it turned a lot of legally carrying Virginians into criminals just by driving someplace they had to go all the time. That probably helped get it changed.
US Post Offices, VA property, and any other federal owned, leased, or tenanted property: No you cannot leave the gun in the car. You cannot even drive into the parking lot if you have a weapon. Including any knife, even a folding knife, having a blade longer than 4 inches. The law says federal "property", which the parking lot is, not just in a federal building. That's a big problem at VA facilities.
The VA medical facilities are most times miles, miles, and miles from many vets. In states with large rural areas, from most vets. I used to live over 400 miles round trip away from the VAMC that I had to got to every month. Now I'm closer, but it's stll 90 miles round trip. The same is true for VAROs, which are usually in the same city as the state's VAMC. And, especially in states where many vets are legally armed, nowadays pretty much everywhere except the Northeast and California, it is a horrible problem.
I was waiting to see a pharmacist yesterday and a VA cop came up and started asking me if I had a gun. I'd been talking about guns (rifles, actually) with someone and some ********* called the cops claiming she'd heard me say I had a gun on me, which I had not. I'm not that stupid. It might have helped that he knew me and knew that besides being a vet I'm also a former large city cop, I don't know. When he questioned me he specifically asked if I had a gun out in my car. If I had, it would have been the same crime as if I had it on my hip inside the hospital. By the way, this stupid law is so broad that even currently full time sworn state, county, or city police officers cannot legally be armed on federal property unless they're there on official police business. Current or honorably retired LEOs can get a special permit from Homeland Security, but the last time I checked it cost $400.
As far as I know, no VAMC or VARO anywhere in the country has a parking lot anywhere nearby which is not part of their property, and I'm completely certain that if even any do it's a pay to park lot. Many VA police do utilize some common sense; one time a few years ago I was leaving and one saw me holstering my 1911 as I was getting in the car, and he just stopped and checked that I was on my way out. But he could have arrested me, and some would. Another time, going through the security screen at the VARO, noticing my empty holster, a VA cop asked if had a gun locked in the car out in the parking lot, so it seems to be official policy to enforce the no weapons anywhere on VA propery. If you have a weapon in the car you just have to hope that the VA cop who realizes it is more reasonable than the law is. Not a hope that it's comfortable staking your potential punishment and a permanent criminal history on..
The law as it now stands legally disarms all veterans who have to drive to a VAMC or VARO, every day facing tens of thousands of vets with the choice of either leaving all firearms and all knives with a more than 4 inch blade (even standard folding Buck knives are too long) home when they have to drive to a VAMC or VARO or being a federal criminal from the moment they drive into a VA parking lot until they leave. If anything happens, like maybe an accident on VA property, and they find a weapon in the car, the vet can and very well might be arrested. In fact, because of that I suspect it is open to a constitutional challenge, and I wish some organization with the necessary resources would sue to get an exception for securing weapons in the vehicle when a vet has legitimate business at a VA facility providing, as the federal parks rule now requires, that his being armed is otherwise legal in accordance with federal and applicable state laws.
Last edited:
niceshootintex
New member
So that is the exact reason you speak out on an opinion board? Somebody relates their own experience based on recollection and conversations with Park Rangers and you swoop in to save the day? Thank God you're here to save us LCDR. I based my reply on my experiences having actually hunted in National Parks in Texas and Wyoming. I didn't run to Google it and like most posts in these forums, the responses are layered such that the accumulation of experiences or opinions drives the end result and your response was well researched so thanks. I now have a clearer picture of Nation Park firearm rules and it will probably be helpful at some point too. Speak in a less sanctimonious and condescending manner to your fellow firearms enthusiasts when you come with the better set of facts. I'm pretty sure we all got some good gouge from you so thanks.
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
Hatchetman
New member
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I dont see a solitary thing in the 2nd that states anything about it being OKAY to infringe on it, in fact it very plainly states that it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"..... So, any regulation or statute or "law" that has anything to do with firearms (arms) is null and void, not a law at all....
I dont see a solitary thing in the 2nd that states anything about it being OKAY to infringe on it, in fact it very plainly states that it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"..... So, any regulation or statute or "law" that has anything to do with firearms (arms) is null and void, not a law at all....
Which law is that? Not 18 USC 930. 18 USC 930 says:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
The prohibition contained in 18 USC 930 is clearly limited to "a building or part therof" and not property. There is no blanket statutory prohibition of firearms on Federal property, just in Federal buildings. There are regulations contained within the Code of Federal Regulations which prohibits firearms on certain Federal property (such as the postal regulations), but there is no blanket prohibition of all Federal property. That is why it is legal to possess a fully loaded firearm in a National Park and in a National Forest (if state law allows) - because there is no regulation against it - and since 2010 there has actually been a statutory law that states the Dept. of Interior is not allow to prohibit firearms through regulations.
But it's actually worse than that. I was being lazy and just using the one law for all federal stuff, because that's how it's being enforced everywhere. So I'll be specific.
The VA:
Title 38, Chapter 1, Part 1, section 1.218(13), Security and law enforcement at VA facilities (Weapons and explosives), says: No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
Having it in a car is carrying it.
The Post Office:
In June 2015 Tab Bonidy, a licensed Colorado concealed carrier, sued the USPS. His post office did not deliver, and he had to go there to get his mail. He argued that the law disarmed him, and that he should at least be allowed to lock his gun in his car in the parking lot. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) prohibits the storage and carriage of firearms on USPS property. He lost at the US District Court For The District Of Colorado. He appealed.
A 3 judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found against him, although 1 judge dissented, saying there should be a locked in the car in the parking lot exception. Bonidy appealed to the Supreme Court.
In March 2016 the SC refused to hear the case, which means the 10th Circuit's decision stands.
I believe the VA prohibition could be overturned in court. Here's why. The 2nd amendment is not as clear, cut, and dried as many people think. Like all articles in the constitution, the courts decide how it applies in the real world. In fact, until fairly recently, because of that "well regulated militia" bit, it was all too often seen as a collective right, not an individual one, allowing members of government run "militias" to be armed, but only as part of the group. According to that interpretation, even an Army reservist had no individual right to be armed. Now the Supreme Court has declared that it is an individual right, and the game has changed. But it is still not an absolute right.
Would you want just anyone at all to be able to drive a car on the highway, with no requirement to prove driving ability, physical condition, or even age? Of course not. That's why we have drivers licenses. Same thing with gun laws.
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a gun is a potentially dangerous instrument, that the government has an actual duty to protect the public, and that "reasonable regulations" concerning who can be armed when and where with what do not infringe on the 2nd amendment. The key is "reasonable". The DC law got tossed because, under the guise of a safety rule, it effectively disarmed everyone by requiring guns, even in the home, to be nonfunctional. The courts found that to be unreasonable.
In Boniday's case, he could leave his gun home, get his mail, and return home for his gun in a short time. The 10th Circuit apparently found that disarming one person for a short period was not unreasonable.
But the VA law forces tens of thousands of vets every day who have to go to a VAMC or VARO to either break federal law or leave all weapons home and remain unarmed. Most vets live many miles away, and for lots of them it's an all day or even a multi day trip. Disarming so many for so long every day could be seen as unreasonable by the courts. I'd love to be the plaintiff in that lawsuit, but I don't even have enough money for a lawyer if I got a traffic ticket.
The VA:
Title 38, Chapter 1, Part 1, section 1.218(13), Security and law enforcement at VA facilities (Weapons and explosives), says: No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
Having it in a car is carrying it.
The Post Office:
In June 2015 Tab Bonidy, a licensed Colorado concealed carrier, sued the USPS. His post office did not deliver, and he had to go there to get his mail. He argued that the law disarmed him, and that he should at least be allowed to lock his gun in his car in the parking lot. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) prohibits the storage and carriage of firearms on USPS property. He lost at the US District Court For The District Of Colorado. He appealed.
A 3 judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found against him, although 1 judge dissented, saying there should be a locked in the car in the parking lot exception. Bonidy appealed to the Supreme Court.
In March 2016 the SC refused to hear the case, which means the 10th Circuit's decision stands.
I believe the VA prohibition could be overturned in court. Here's why. The 2nd amendment is not as clear, cut, and dried as many people think. Like all articles in the constitution, the courts decide how it applies in the real world. In fact, until fairly recently, because of that "well regulated militia" bit, it was all too often seen as a collective right, not an individual one, allowing members of government run "militias" to be armed, but only as part of the group. According to that interpretation, even an Army reservist had no individual right to be armed. Now the Supreme Court has declared that it is an individual right, and the game has changed. But it is still not an absolute right.
Would you want just anyone at all to be able to drive a car on the highway, with no requirement to prove driving ability, physical condition, or even age? Of course not. That's why we have drivers licenses. Same thing with gun laws.
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that a gun is a potentially dangerous instrument, that the government has an actual duty to protect the public, and that "reasonable regulations" concerning who can be armed when and where with what do not infringe on the 2nd amendment. The key is "reasonable". The DC law got tossed because, under the guise of a safety rule, it effectively disarmed everyone by requiring guns, even in the home, to be nonfunctional. The courts found that to be unreasonable.
In Boniday's case, he could leave his gun home, get his mail, and return home for his gun in a short time. The 10th Circuit apparently found that disarming one person for a short period was not unreasonable.
But the VA law forces tens of thousands of vets every day who have to go to a VAMC or VARO to either break federal law or leave all weapons home and remain unarmed. Most vets live many miles away, and for lots of them it's an all day or even a multi day trip. Disarming so many for so long every day could be seen as unreasonable by the courts. I'd love to be the plaintiff in that lawsuit, but I don't even have enough money for a lawyer if I got a traffic ticket.
niceshootintex
New member
tmaca,
I think LCDR is right by the letter of the law. So many rules, who knows anymore. Problem is, I go to the VA at least twice a month and it sounds like you do too and it is drilled into Vets seeking VA care that guns, ammo, and knives are verboten. It is totally unfair that a vet that meets all of the wickets to concealed carry cannot at least carry to the facility and then lock their EDC in their vehicle. I am completely ok with not carrying in the facility and God knows I don't always feel safe inside. Some of our brothers and sisters in arms have some severe mental anguish and trauma and I have seen examples of their pain inside the VA. I know I can't afford the lawsuit or risk jail so I grimace and bear it to get care. All you have to do is pick up the phone and call the various VA facilities PD folks (most of them good solid vets themselves) and you'll (anecdotally) get their position on guns once you even cross the entrance threshold. Ask a vet that gets care on a consistent basis. Not one of them will be reluctant to speak about their views on that rule but not one of us dares break it. I go to a VA facility on occasion that is in one of the highest crime neighborhoods in our entire state and the parking lot on the facility is full by 0745. What that means is if you get stuck in traffic or delayed for any reason is that then you're on the street and parking on the streets outside the VA "campus". Who would want to leave their carry locked in the car in that case? It's a total catch 22 but I don't have the resources to fight it and I have had a conversation with my state representative and they are completely neutered at the state level. Forget about talking to Congresspersons. Talk to the hand you pesky vets. Maybe if I win the lotto, I'll take it on but in the meantime and in betweetime, it is just what it is.
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
Exact Reason To Post
I think what the guy is saying is not that he feels a need to tell people they're wrong, but that there is a lot of incorrect info floating around concerning guns, and it's worth the effort to provide correct info if you can. It might save someone a lot of trouble. I've seen things here at times that said you could not be armed somewhere you could, and things saying you could when you cannot. Two examples are national parks and the VA and the Post Office parking lots. Someone going to or through a national park could have a problem if he didn't know the law now allows firearms. Someone in the Post Office or VA parking lot could end up arrested if he thought he could have a weapon in the car.
And he'd be right. Nowadays most everyone gets their info online. And sometimes they forget that discussions like this are just that, discussions, written by ordinary people, and not expert opinions from the site itself. So once in a while someone will take what they read as Gospel truth even when it's wrong. And with guns, all it takes is one mistake about the law to ruin your life.
I think what the guy is saying is not that he feels a need to tell people they're wrong, but that there is a lot of incorrect info floating around concerning guns, and it's worth the effort to provide correct info if you can. It might save someone a lot of trouble. I've seen things here at times that said you could not be armed somewhere you could, and things saying you could when you cannot. Two examples are national parks and the VA and the Post Office parking lots. Someone going to or through a national park could have a problem if he didn't know the law now allows firearms. Someone in the Post Office or VA parking lot could end up arrested if he thought he could have a weapon in the car.
And he'd be right. Nowadays most everyone gets their info online. And sometimes they forget that discussions like this are just that, discussions, written by ordinary people, and not expert opinions from the site itself. So once in a while someone will take what they read as Gospel truth even when it's wrong. And with guns, all it takes is one mistake about the law to ruin your life.
I did that at Wright-Patt but it was a pain to answer the "why's" about not leaving it at home. The desk sergeant ended up just making a note and had me inform base LE he'd said I could stow it in the armory. I won't do it again because its such a pain. Plus if I were stopped on the way to the armory by an LEO who wasn't in the loop it could be downright hazardous given all the crap going on nowadays.
USAF(Ret)
niceshootintex
New member
I think LCDR put out good gouge and I felt it was important to also thank him for that. Posting on boards is sometimes such a flat medium that nuances easily picked up in person, or even on the phone, are missed. If that was the case then I'm humble enough and more than glad to give another poster, especially a service member, the benefit of the doubt. His data was accurate and helpful for certain.
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
I explained my reason for "nit picking" in an earlier post. There are plenty of laws and regulations that DO infringe upon our right to keep and bear firearms. When people post things like "according to FOPA, firearms and ammo must be locked up separately" and "Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms on all Federal property" people will just take it as fact and because of that maybe not exercise what little right to keep and bear firearms the government has not actually made illegal or otherwise regulated.
And in regards to people who like to claim that the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... then why is the 2nd Amendment different than the other rights in the Bill of Rights? Let's take the 4th Amendment, for example. Why is a background check and a permit not required to exercise 4th Amendment rights? Imagine how great it would be to have to pay for a background check with fingerprints to get a 4th Amendment permit! You get stopped for speeding. The officer asks for your 4th Amendment permit. Don't have one? Awesome, how about if you exit the vehicle now, get frisked by the officer for weapons, and have your car searched. Imagine how much easier that would make police officers' jobs and how much safer everyone would be! (Yes, that was sarcasm, but I'll bet you could get the far left 'progressives' to go for it!) Oh, but by goodness don't ask anyone if they are in the country illegally, we can't do that, now can we.
Why is the right to keep and bear arms different than the right to vote? Can you image how the liberals would wail and cry and moan if we required people to take the same actions to vote as to purchase a firearm from an FFL? So, if the simple requirement of having to produce a valid government ID in order to vote is an infringement on that right to vote (you know, the voter suppression argument), then why is having to obtain the government's permission to keep and bear firearms not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment?
And that's my point in all this - the government does infringe on the 2nd Amendment too much already by statute and regulation, I just do not think the gun owning community needs "tribal knowledge" to provide even more "regulation" than what is already an actual written statute or regulation.
And in regards to people who like to claim that the 2nd Amendment does not mean what it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".... then why is the 2nd Amendment different than the other rights in the Bill of Rights? Let's take the 4th Amendment, for example. Why is a background check and a permit not required to exercise 4th Amendment rights? Imagine how great it would be to have to pay for a background check with fingerprints to get a 4th Amendment permit! You get stopped for speeding. The officer asks for your 4th Amendment permit. Don't have one? Awesome, how about if you exit the vehicle now, get frisked by the officer for weapons, and have your car searched. Imagine how much easier that would make police officers' jobs and how much safer everyone would be! (Yes, that was sarcasm, but I'll bet you could get the far left 'progressives' to go for it!) Oh, but by goodness don't ask anyone if they are in the country illegally, we can't do that, now can we.
Why is the right to keep and bear arms different than the right to vote? Can you image how the liberals would wail and cry and moan if we required people to take the same actions to vote as to purchase a firearm from an FFL? So, if the simple requirement of having to produce a valid government ID in order to vote is an infringement on that right to vote (you know, the voter suppression argument), then why is having to obtain the government's permission to keep and bear firearms not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment?
And that's my point in all this - the government does infringe on the 2nd Amendment too much already by statute and regulation, I just do not think the gun owning community needs "tribal knowledge" to provide even more "regulation" than what is already an actual written statute or regulation.
niceshootintex
New member
Your analogies to the 4A and simple, sensible ID voting requirements vs a tangled bureaucracy of admin hurdles for gun ownership illustrate the problems of "common sense gun control" attempts by the Lefty's at every opportunity. You were kind to call them progressives.
Whether it was well researched, or knowledge of National Park rules you carry with you, as a hunter and CC advocate, your post was helpful. As a former holder of the title you use as a pseudonym, appreciate the effort involved. Don't drive on base with your EDC to make your point though....
Sent from my XT1585 using Link Removed
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.