Wait a minute. We sat down and actually READ 18 USC (930)...

[ViperGTS19801]

...and I think the information on PAFOA regarding the carrying of firearms in Federal facilities may not be correct.

PrettyInPink and I were going through the pictures from the PGRM rally a couple of weekends ago and we got curious, so we looked up the federal statutes.

I'm wondering if we missed something.

Follow me here...

18 USC 930: (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.

So having in a federal building is not cool. Unless...

(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.

Now, I though a precedent was set a couple of years ago by the fellow who was "caught" carrying at a high school football game, and when prosecuted, didn't he end up not being convicted based on the "other lawful purpose" language? "Self defense" was held as a "lawful purpose," was it not?

The only caveat I see here is whether or not a "lawful purpose" as stated by Federal law would refer to language under State law or if it would have to be enumerated by it's own class.

I may have to email a lawyer on this one, because it's got me thinking.

[ocp]

I call post office open carry event!

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The only reason my post master does not carry is the above. I know she wouldn't care,

[ViperGTS19801]

I call post office open carry event!

I was thinking "Liberty Bell OC"...

[tl_3237]

I think we already have some SCOTUS ruminations on this in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court 2008:

1. Self-defense is a "lawful purpose":

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

2. prohibitions in government building is allowed:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,

I suppose someone could proffer a cogent argument that self-defense qualifies for the 18 USC 930(d)(3) exemption but, without established FEDERAL case law, I would be hesitant to rely on the argument's success.

[libra8]

IMO you are on to something Mark.

[Ret-Fed]

... and as is the case in many of the post offices in my area of Pennsylvania, if the location is NOT "posted conspicuously at each public entrance" (see sub-section (h) below), then "no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e)".

18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
...
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) 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.

[tl_3237]

... and as is the case in many of the post offices in my area of Pennsylvania, if the location is NOT "posted conspicuously at each public entrance" (see sub-section (h) below), then "no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e)".

18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
...
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) 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.

But watch out for 39 CFR 232.1(l):

(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.

Possible $5000 and/or 30 days

[HiredGoon]

Now, I though a precedent was set a couple of years ago by the fellow who was "caught" carrying at a high school football game, and when prosecuted, didn't he end up not being convicted based on the "other lawful purpose" language? "Self defense" was held as a "lawful purpose," was it not?

As I recall, a legal precedent was not set by the outcome of this. Gunlawyer talked about this in a post somewhere here.

[ROCK-IT3]

Here is a pertinent article ion this issue, concerning Ohio CHL holders and the post office: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conce...rude-awakening

I know this is PA, not Ohio, but the argument is probably the same for any state that allows the carrying of firearms. I also know it doesn't address carrying in other federal facilities, but the point of the article is still valid, which is that there may be other statutes or regulations that prohibit carrying in certain federal facilities, which are not overruled by the exceptions in 18 USC 930.