Firearms on military property
- Thread starter Don H
- Start date
- Status
Uncle Buck
New member
A military base is federal property, so I do not know how this would work out. If the civilian was carrying a weapon (Gun) which was legal in the state, but was not allowed when they entered the base.... Interesting.
I have contacted some of my friends who still work as Civilian Security/Law Enforcement on different bases and asked them if they could point out specific cases.
When I hear back, I will let you know.
When I was on active duty, I was involved in an incident on base with a civilian friend. I eventually received a letter of counseling and my friend received a Magistrates ticket.
When we went to court, my friend was told he could face up to one year in a federal prison if convicted. Charges where dismissed.
Last edited:
Uncle Buck
New member
Here is one of the responses I received. I edited it in order to hide my friends identity, but I do not think it changes the content.
Here at ( XXXXXXX), we have been charging civilians for carrying firearms onto a federal reservation. At the request of the magistrate, given Georgia's near lack of gun laws, we do make an effort to turn civilians around at the gates if they have weapons in the car. Military personnel are usually charged with Article 92. (Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation)
However, if we catch civilians on post with a loaded (outside the hunting and range areas), we charge them and they go to federal court. We use the charge: WEAPONS VIOLATIONS, CONCEALED WEAPON (GA CODE 16-11-126) (ON POST). There is also a charge in Title 18 of the U.S. Code regarding concealed weapons on federal reservations. (I was surprised to read they use a state code to charge people on a federal installation)
To date, we have never lost a case. The usual outcome is usually around $500 fine and probation. I have not seen anyone sent to jail, yet. Georgia has some very loose gun laws, that are fixing to get even looser. I often remind folks, when they say "I have a concealed permit", "Your permit is good for Georgia and Georgia stops at the post boundary.
We do allow weapons to be brought on post by civilians under the following conditions: 1) The weapon must be declared at the gate. 2) The weapon must be unloaded. 3) The ammo and the weapon have to be in different compartments, ie., trunk and passenger area. 4) The owner has to travel directly to the range or hunting areas with no stops along the way. Upon leaving post they travel directly from those areas to the gates.
The best advice I can give anyone is to go to the LE Desk and get a copy of the base regulation. They will usually give people a copy.
There are 15 military bases in Georgia. I am not sure they all use the same procedures. But it is something to think about if you decide to bring a weapon on base. http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/gamil.htm
Here at ( XXXXXXX), we have been charging civilians for carrying firearms onto a federal reservation. At the request of the magistrate, given Georgia's near lack of gun laws, we do make an effort to turn civilians around at the gates if they have weapons in the car. Military personnel are usually charged with Article 92. (Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation)
However, if we catch civilians on post with a loaded (outside the hunting and range areas), we charge them and they go to federal court. We use the charge: WEAPONS VIOLATIONS, CONCEALED WEAPON (GA CODE 16-11-126) (ON POST). There is also a charge in Title 18 of the U.S. Code regarding concealed weapons on federal reservations. (I was surprised to read they use a state code to charge people on a federal installation)
To date, we have never lost a case. The usual outcome is usually around $500 fine and probation. I have not seen anyone sent to jail, yet. Georgia has some very loose gun laws, that are fixing to get even looser. I often remind folks, when they say "I have a concealed permit", "Your permit is good for Georgia and Georgia stops at the post boundary.
We do allow weapons to be brought on post by civilians under the following conditions: 1) The weapon must be declared at the gate. 2) The weapon must be unloaded. 3) The ammo and the weapon have to be in different compartments, ie., trunk and passenger area. 4) The owner has to travel directly to the range or hunting areas with no stops along the way. Upon leaving post they travel directly from those areas to the gates.
The best advice I can give anyone is to go to the LE Desk and get a copy of the base regulation. They will usually give people a copy.
There are 15 military bases in Georgia. I am not sure they all use the same procedures. But it is something to think about if you decide to bring a weapon on base. http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/gamil.htm
Last edited:
Uncle Buck, thanks for the information. Could you possibly ask your source if he recalls exactly which statute in Title 18 people were successfully charged with and whether the people charged were in structures or merely on the military reservation (for example, watching an air show and never entering a building)?
Uncle Buck
New member
"The charge would be under 18 USC 930, Possession of Firearms and Danagerous Weapons in Federal Facilities (which includes military bases). The weapon can be on one's person or in their vehicle. There is no requirement for them to have entered a structure to substatiate the charge. I've pulled plenty of weapons out of vehicles and charged the owner. I've gotten a conviction everytime and our magistrate is an old country Georgia judge, by no means a liberal. A person can be given up to 1 year in prison, but I have yet to see anyone sent to jail. The magistrate just fines the XXXX out of them. State open and concealed carry laws have no basis on federal property."
This is the reply I rec'd.
This is the reply I rec'd.
Only thing is, that is not how 930 reads. Check the link in my earlier post.
Since the Georgia magistrate has not sent anybody to jail, I wonder if there have been any appeals. Without an appeal, there really is no case law, there is only what they have been doing so far.
930 specifically limits the allowable restrictions on federal properties.
Since the Georgia magistrate has not sent anybody to jail, I wonder if there have been any appeals. Without an appeal, there really is no case law, there is only what they have been doing so far.
930 specifically limits the allowable restrictions on federal properties.
Thanks, Uncle Buck, for posting the response from your source.
Unless there's sufficient case law or appellate precedent expanding the definition of a "federal facility", I just don't see how 18 USC 930 would apply outside of structures, given the definition of "federal facility" embedded in the statute.
A Google search (which I realize is very limited) only turned up convictions under 18 USC 930 of people who were inside federal buildings; none that I could find were for merely being on federal property with a firearm.
As a point of interest, the firearm prohibition in National Parks was accomplished with a CFR regulation (36 CFR 2.4). I'd think that if 18 USC 930 applied to mere federal property, rather than buildings), it, in and of itself, would have been sufficient to regulate firearms on NP lands.
Any attorneys on this board care to join in and speculate on this subject?
Unless there's sufficient case law or appellate precedent expanding the definition of a "federal facility", I just don't see how 18 USC 930 would apply outside of structures, given the definition of "federal facility" embedded in the statute.
A Google search (which I realize is very limited) only turned up convictions under 18 USC 930 of people who were inside federal buildings; none that I could find were for merely being on federal property with a firearm.
As a point of interest, the firearm prohibition in National Parks was accomplished with a CFR regulation (36 CFR 2.4). I'd think that if 18 USC 930 applied to mere federal property, rather than buildings), it, in and of itself, would have been sufficient to regulate firearms on NP lands.
Any attorneys on this board care to join in and speculate on this subject?
Read the section, Brickeyee; incidental to hunting or other lawful purposes allows a lot of latitude; also, some federal reservations specifically do recognize state CCW; and Uncle Buck's source referred to weapons in vehicles, not necessarily concealed.
Still waiting for appellate cases involving 930, as opposed to assimilated state laws. Anybody?
Still waiting for appellate cases involving 930, as opposed to assimilated state laws. Anybody?
I didn't say that I wanted to carry on a military base but I am exploring the legalities of doing so. Additionally, since in almost all states in the U.S. it is legal to possess and/or carry a firearm, a number of people who do so have the problem of what to do with their firearm(s) if they desire to attend an event on a base or have business on a base.
Also, military bases here have been the scene of violence resulting in deaths a number of times. Some people prefer to take responsibility for their own safety (something that people in some other countries may not be allowed to do) since law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals.
As I stated a number of times in earlier threads, I'm merely trying to pin down the specific federal code that prohibits a civilian from possessing a firearm on military property; an academic quest, so to speak.
Also, military bases here have been the scene of violence resulting in deaths a number of times. Some people prefer to take responsibility for their own safety (something that people in some other countries may not be allowed to do) since law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals.
As I stated a number of times in earlier threads, I'm merely trying to pin down the specific federal code that prohibits a civilian from possessing a firearm on military property; an academic quest, so to speak.
manta49, a lot of us like to bring a firearm when we go on a road trip. Sometimes, for some of us, those road trips might entail a visit to a base.
Or, for that matter, a visit to a Veteran's Administration office.
You get that a lot, with military retirees who travel.
We aren't talking about running around with a weapon in hand, we are talking about a gun locked in a vehicle, to be carried concealed on other parts of the trip.
For those of us who don't live all that close to a VA center, and especially for those of us who have to travel through some of the nastier parts of town to get to a VA center, this can also be a problem for dedicated trips to the VA.
Or, for that matter, a visit to a Veteran's Administration office.
You get that a lot, with military retirees who travel.
We aren't talking about running around with a weapon in hand, we are talking about a gun locked in a vehicle, to be carried concealed on other parts of the trip.
For those of us who don't live all that close to a VA center, and especially for those of us who have to travel through some of the nastier parts of town to get to a VA center, this can also be a problem for dedicated trips to the VA.
Here if you are carrying a firearm for personal protection then you hand it in at security. You then lift it again when you leave the base. I would assume that bases in America have similar rules for bringing firearms into the base so you just follow the base rules. It could be different in America here i don't think there is a specific law. The MOD decides what the rules are on MOD bases.
Last edited:
You can try and pretend you are under the "lawful purpose" cloud, but that is not what it has ever been interpreted as.
It covers government agents carrying out their jobs, like the Postal Inspectors on Post Office property, or bringin a a long gun into a post office to mail it.
It is not going to extend to any lawful purpose you want it to.
Legislative intent will be used to determine what "lawful activity" the law was intended to cover, not whatever you try to dream up.
Congress's intent sets the boundaries.
The Congressional record is there for you to look at, along with the courts.
brickeyee, you didn't read the link, did you?
It says, under exceptions,
So your LE types are going hunting in their official capacity, are they?
It would be ok to have the weapon if you were going hunting... or to ship it.
Since you are claiming there's a long judicial record on this, please cite some applicable appellate cases. Otherwise, you can apologize for the "whatever I dream up" comment.
It says, under exceptions,
So your LE types are going hunting in their official capacity, are they?
It would be ok to have the weapon if you were going hunting... or to ship it.
Since you are claiming there's a long judicial record on this, please cite some applicable appellate cases. Otherwise, you can apologize for the "whatever I dream up" comment.
Yes I did.
Self defense is not a 'lawful' purpose allowing you to carry.
YOU do not get to define 'lawful' purpose.
Congressional intent defines 'lawful purpose.'
When you find something in the Congressional record let us know.
Until then you simply do not get to define the term as you want.
And law enforcement is allowed on Federal property by agreements between the law enforcement agency and the government function that controls the property.
I have personally seen state police turned away from some Federal installations.
They were not allowed past the gate and the barricades were raised as soon as they gave any static to the FPS guards.
The law does NOT mean whomever is controlling the Federal property cannot let in anyone they want for any purpose the two parties agree on (it becomes a 'lawful purpose' at that point), just that without permission they cannot enter.
The base commander can allow hunting if they wish, but they do not have to allow hunting.
They can also have whatever rules they want.
Like non handguns, fixed locations, etc.
A Military installation is a different animal than other facilities. I will now put my Green Hat on and give you a dose of reality.
I am the Commander, you are on my base and you will bloody well do what I say. If you violate my rules I will classify you as a terrorist and turn you over to the FBI and the Feds for prosecution. It will take weeks if not months to sort out your situation.
If I am going to a base, I check the Post Regulations and abide by them.
If you chose to make a test case in this day and age be ready for a long stay in a Military Lockup. The brig is not a plesant place to stay. Frankly I would rather be in Sheriff Joe's tent city than a Military Brig.
I am the Commander, you are on my base and you will bloody well do what I say. If you violate my rules I will classify you as a terrorist and turn you over to the FBI and the Feds for prosecution. It will take weeks if not months to sort out your situation.
If I am going to a base, I check the Post Regulations and abide by them.
If you chose to make a test case in this day and age be ready for a long stay in a Military Lockup. The brig is not a plesant place to stay. Frankly I would rather be in Sheriff Joe's tent city than a Military Brig.
ltc444, I think I already indicated I don't recommend trying this out. (Besides which, as a retiree, I suspect I'm subject to UCMJ when I do go to a base, and think that would be the chink in my armor for any such test case.)
My point is, though, the way the code is written, it doesn't actually provide for that power.
I most definitely would not like to be the test case. That doesn't mean I don't think the military is overstepping the authority the federal code actually specifies.
I also note that nobody has been able to provide on-point appellate records... They may exist, but nobody has pointed them out if they do.
My point is, though, the way the code is written, it doesn't actually provide for that power.
I most definitely would not like to be the test case. That doesn't mean I don't think the military is overstepping the authority the federal code actually specifies.
I also note that nobody has been able to provide on-point appellate records... They may exist, but nobody has pointed them out if they do.
- Status