You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Firearms on military property
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Tombstonejim
New member
For the most part each seperate installation commander makes the rules for his installation.
Civilians carry weapons to fro from Ft Huachuca all the time. They can shoot at the post skeet/trap range and at the plinking range.
Most Army installations work the same way. Weapons are supposed to be registered with the Provost Office and they give you a certified print out that they are registered and if questioned at the gate you just show the print out.
No big deal.
Civilians are also allowed to hunt on Fort land.
I doubt there is any Federal law. Would be under Army, Air Force, Navy, whatever regulations.
Civilians carry weapons to fro from Ft Huachuca all the time. They can shoot at the post skeet/trap range and at the plinking range.
Most Army installations work the same way. Weapons are supposed to be registered with the Provost Office and they give you a certified print out that they are registered and if questioned at the gate you just show the print out.
No big deal.
Civilians are also allowed to hunt on Fort land.
I doubt there is any Federal law. Would be under Army, Air Force, Navy, whatever regulations.
i often shoot and hunt on Ft. Sill, OK. Carry of concealed weapons on US Army bases, except by LEOs, is forbidden. Any gun brought onto the base must be registered. Registration is in a Pentagon database.
Troops who live in barracks keep their guns in the unit armory. Married personnel living on base keep guns in their quarters.
Troops who live in barracks keep their guns in the unit armory. Married personnel living on base keep guns in their quarters.
This is the regulation that governs private weapons on Ft. Sill OK. Ft. Sill Reg 190-1. See page 28:
http://sill-www.army.mil/dhr/Admin_Svcs_Div/FS_Pubs/Regs/Fort_Sill_Reg_190-1.pdf
http://sill-www.army.mil/dhr/Admin_Svcs_Div/FS_Pubs/Regs/Fort_Sill_Reg_190-1.pdf
Thanks for the information!
It seems to me that with no federal statute prohibiting a civilian from bringing a firearm on base, there would be no penalty for the civilian if he were to do so, unless, of course, a federal trespassing statute is violated. It's possible that a state statute may be violated by such an action but that would vary widely from state to state. Since a civilian is not subject to the UCMJ, violation of this base regulation has no legal penalty, it appears.
By the way, I have no intention of doing this. I'm just exploring the issue for my own edification. If anyone has any commentary to add, I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
The link posted by thallub (Thank you!) contains the following passage:
It seems to me that with no federal statute prohibiting a civilian from bringing a firearm on base, there would be no penalty for the civilian if he were to do so, unless, of course, a federal trespassing statute is violated. It's possible that a state statute may be violated by such an action but that would vary widely from state to state. Since a civilian is not subject to the UCMJ, violation of this base regulation has no legal penalty, it appears.
By the way, I have no intention of doing this. I'm just exploring the issue for my own edification. If anyone has any commentary to add, I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
The link posted by thallub (Thank you!) contains the following passage:
The provisions of this regulation apply to all military personnel, units,
organizations, activities, facilities, and offices, which are assigned, attached, or
otherwise supported by Fort Sill. This regulation also applies to all persons living,
working, traveling, or otherwise located upon Fort Sill. Violations of this regulation by
military personnel may subject offenders to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice and/or administrative action as deemed appropriate by the
commander. However, this regulation is not intended to preclude possible prosecution
of military personnel for violations of state or federal laws or other regulations, when
applicable. Any violation of this regulation by family members, civilian employees, or
other civilians while on this installation may subject the offender to administrative action
and/or criminal prosecution under applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
These actions may include, but are not limited to, loss of privileges and debarment from
post. These provisions do not apply to law enforcement personnel while in the
execution of their duties.
It seems to me that with no federal statute prohibiting a civilian from bringing a firearm on base, there would be no penalty for the civilian if he were to do so, unless, of course, a federal trespassing statute is violated.
The governing publication for the Army is AR 190-11. See page 22, Para 4-5.
There have been cases of folks carrying concealed on Army bases. Military folks are sometimes court-martialed and civilians almost always see the federal magistrate. It's a felony thing.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reference, thallub! What I'm trying to discover is, if it's a "felony thing" for a civilian to bring an unauthorized firearm on base, what federal statute or CFR applies that makes it a felony. It's my understanding (and I may be wildly off-base here) that such a regulation promulgated by a base commander, or even by the service branch itself, has no force of law for a civilian, that a civilian violating such a regulation at most would be escorted off the base and possibly (likely?) prohibited from returning.
I'm just trying to nail down the applicable code section under which the person would be charged.
I'm just trying to nail down the applicable code section under which the person would be charged.
Civilians who are caught carrying concealed handguns on base get a quick trip to the federal magistrate. The magistrate will set hearing date.
You can't legally carry a concealed handgun onto an Army base for the same reason you can't legally carry a concealed handgun into a federal court house or post office. Guns are forbidden in the VA hospital parking lot in OK City.
The law governing the carry of a weapon on federal property is Title 18, Chapter 44, § 930 of the US Code.
You can't legally carry a concealed handgun onto an Army base for the same reason you can't legally carry a concealed handgun into a federal court house or post office. Guns are forbidden in the VA hospital parking lot in OK City.
The law governing the carry of a weapon on federal property is Title 18, Chapter 44, § 930 of the US Code.
Well, 18 USC 930 doesn't cover it either. It refers to "Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities" and defines a federal facility as:
This seems to clearly limit itself to structures and only some structures at that. Unless the unauthorized firearm is carried into a building on the base, this statute wouldn't apply. If the firearm is in a vehicle in a parking lot or the person carrying the firearm doesn't go inside a building, it doesn't appear that this would be a valid statute with which to charge a person.
As for the VA hospital, there's a section in the CFR's that deal with weapons on VA property:
39 CFR 232.1 has a similar prohibition for firearms on Post Office property, such as a parking lot) although 18 USC 930 covers the building(s):
The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
This seems to clearly limit itself to structures and only some structures at that. Unless the unauthorized firearm is carried into a building on the base, this statute wouldn't apply. If the firearm is in a vehicle in a parking lot or the person carrying the firearm doesn't go inside a building, it doesn't appear that this would be a valid statute with which to charge a person.
As for the VA hospital, there's a section in the CFR's that deal with weapons on VA property:
38 C.F.R. § 1.218
Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
39 CFR 232.1 has a similar prohibition for firearms on Post Office property, such as a parking lot) although 18 USC 930 covers the building(s):
I cannot find anything similar that covers unauthorized firearms on military property exclusive of buildings.39 CFR 232.1 (k)(1)
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.
In reading through section 930 of the Federal code,
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt (note: Section 930 is way down at the bottom) there is this glaring exception:
So I am kind of curious as to how cases of civilians going before a Federal magistrate were adjudicated.
I could keep quoting, but it would take all day. Check the link and see for yourself. But, the way this reads, for regular federal facilities, and for federal courts (subsection e),
So, notice is required, either via signage or verifiable notification.
Even then, it appears that regular federal facilities (everything other than courts) are not supposed to restrict possession of weapons for "other lawful purposes."
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the government would fight an ultimately losing battle on this type of case; OTOH, I certainly don't wish to be the test case, and lose my shirt on legal costs, appeals, etc.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C44.txt (note: Section 930 is way down at the bottom) there is this glaring exception:
Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal
facilities
-STATUTE-
(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.
(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.
So I am kind of curious as to how cases of civilians going before a Federal magistrate were adjudicated.
I could keep quoting, but it would take all day. Check the link and see for yourself. But, the way this reads, for regular federal facilities, and for federal courts (subsection e),
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, notice is required, either via signage or verifiable notification.
Even then, it appears that regular federal facilities (everything other than courts) are not supposed to restrict possession of weapons for "other lawful purposes."
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the government would fight an ultimately losing battle on this type of case; OTOH, I certainly don't wish to be the test case, and lose my shirt on legal costs, appeals, etc.
So, notice is required, either via signage or verifiable notification.
Yep, thats the reason they have those big no concealed handguns signs at the entrance to military bases. The gates at Ft. Sill have been moved back. You see the sign before you get to the gate.
thallub, I understand that.
However, if you actually read Section 930, it says that for general federal facilities, the rules are not intended to infringe on possession for hunting or other lawful purposes.
Licensed concealed carry for personal protection is generally found to be a lawful purpose, so, the way this section reads, even if there are signs, they are not allowed to infringe on lawful purposes, outside the buildings.
I'm curious to see if anybody can point to any actual appellate level case law on this.
Edit: I also understand this has been a major bone of contention at VA facilities, but I don't know of any cases that have actually gone forward, just threats by VA security to press charges.
Again, does anybody know of any appellate case law?
However, if you actually read Section 930, it says that for general federal facilities, the rules are not intended to infringe on possession for hunting or other lawful purposes.
Licensed concealed carry for personal protection is generally found to be a lawful purpose, so, the way this section reads, even if there are signs, they are not allowed to infringe on lawful purposes, outside the buildings.
I'm curious to see if anybody can point to any actual appellate level case law on this.
Edit: I also understand this has been a major bone of contention at VA facilities, but I don't know of any cases that have actually gone forward, just threats by VA security to press charges.
Again, does anybody know of any appellate case law?
thallub, that airman was subject to UCMJ, which is entirely different.
(Edit: Most likely convicted of failure to comply with a lawful order, or similar.)
(Second edit: And some dope? As in possession of firearm during commission of a felony - which having drugs on base would be? This is waaaaaay off point, thallub.)
What case law exists for a civilian, not subject to UCMJ? (Specifically, a civilian with CCW, and section 930.)
(Edit: Most likely convicted of failure to comply with a lawful order, or similar.)
(Second edit: And some dope? As in possession of firearm during commission of a felony - which having drugs on base would be? This is waaaaaay off point, thallub.)
What case law exists for a civilian, not subject to UCMJ? (Specifically, a civilian with CCW, and section 930.)
Parker was convicted under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act of a violation of Utah code 76-10-505. However, Utah code 53-5-704 states:
If Parker, the person in thallub's link, had a CCW permit, then the law would not have been applicable because he would then be an "authorized person". Indeed, if the firearm had been unloaded he would not have been in violation of 76-10-505.
This conviction seems to confirm that there is no applicable federal law to charge a civilian with a crime for possessing a firearm on a military base, otherwise it seems logical that he would have been charged with a federal crime rather than being convicted in a federal court of a federal charge of violating a state law.
If Parker had a CCW permit or if the handgun had been unloaded and UCA 76-10-505 then was not applicable, of what crime would he then have been charged?
(c) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1) and (2), and Section 76-10-505 do not apply to a person issued a permit under Subsection (1)(a).
If Parker, the person in thallub's link, had a CCW permit, then the law would not have been applicable because he would then be an "authorized person". Indeed, if the firearm had been unloaded he would not have been in violation of 76-10-505.
This conviction seems to confirm that there is no applicable federal law to charge a civilian with a crime for possessing a firearm on a military base, otherwise it seems logical that he would have been charged with a federal crime rather than being convicted in a federal court of a federal charge of violating a state law.
If Parker had a CCW permit or if the handgun had been unloaded and UCA 76-10-505 then was not applicable, of what crime would he then have been charged?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.