Jan 6th Protests in DC and the Gun Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
shurshot said:
https://lawenforcementmuseum.org/mus...rearms-policy/

I guess this Museum in DC reads the law differently than some of you do, pertaining to their policy, which appears based on the LEOSA. Other venues in DC may have a different take on it.
Click to expand...
I don't see any conflict or different interpretation. The National Law Enforcement Museum isn't owned or operated by the federal government.

Other venues, such as the Smithsonian Institution, the Air & Space Museum, and the Botanical Gardens, are government owned and operated.
 
"BUT (the big "but") ... Washington, DC, is not a state. It's a federal "enclave." If laws are to be construed according to their plain language meaning, then I think we have to assume that "state" means "state," and Washington, DC, is not a state. Therefore, I would conclude that the LEOSA does not apply within Washington, DC."(AB)

I'm aware its privately owned. My point is, since they recognize and allow LEOSA carry, and the Museum is located in DC (444 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20001), and it's a Law Enforcement Museum, obviously they (Museum Administrators), feel that the LEOSA DOES apply in DC, or they wouldn't accommodate and put off duty and retired LEO's in legal jeopardy. Right?

Would it make sense for them to recognize and accommodate a Federal law if it wasn't valid in DC?
 
Last edited:
shurshot said:
I'm aware its privately owned. My point is, since they recognize and allow LEOSA carry, and the Museum is located in DC (444 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20001), and it's Law Enforcement Museum, obviously they feel that the LEOSA DOES apply in DC, or they wouldn't accommodate.

Right? Would it make sense for them to recognize and accommodate a Federal law if it wasn't valid in DC?
Click to expand...
See posts #15 and #16.

KyJim said:
So, even qualified retired law enforcement officers may be prohibited from carrying on a good bit of land in D.C.

D.C. is considered to be a state for purposes of the above statute. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2) specifically states: "The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) [for purposes of this Chapter]."
Click to expand...
 
I qualify, but no way in Hell I would carry in DC... far too confusing. Probably why I have yet to travel there! :D
 
Well, it has been quite the fecal storm in DC today, with some "Trump supporters" breaking through the police lines and into the Capitol building itself. One woman shot, reported to have died.

No mention in the press I saw of any of those people being armed. It seems the only guns were in the hands of the police.

We'll have to see what results, of course, one side is already almost foaming at the mouth and no doubt will push as hard as they can while the outrage is fresh.

Hopefully cooler heads and rational thought will prevail, but I have my doubts...
 
I didn't see any sign that the pro-Trump looters had firearms - some seemed to have sticks. Apparently a long gun was found on the Capitol grounds. The woman that died seems to have been shot by law enforcement inside the Capitol.

All things being equal, the police showed a lot of restraint, considering the US Capitol was stormed by force - the first time since 1814. In slightly different circumstances, there would have been a lot of dead bodies.
 
"We'll have to see what results, of course, one side is already almost foaming at the mouth and no doubt will push as hard as they can while the outrage is fresh."(44AMP)


ALL of us should be upset over what happened. This goes beyond politics. It was insurrection. Imagine if that was ANTIFA or BLM members who had breached and violated our Congressional halls... who would "foam at the mouth" then? :rolleyes: We ALL should foam at the mouth... especially those of us who belong to the supposed party of Law and Order.

We are a nation of LAWS. We are better than this.
 
Last edited:
Both NY City and Washington DC are not places I am about to go, anytime soon!
Because I can not carry my Glock 19. And looking at the riotous behaviour practised by these people, not being armed would make no sense. So never going there, made lots of sense, to me.

A good place to live, this Florida.
 
While I am not familiar with the specifics of DC law, I believe that carry is very restricted. What the Heller decision did was end DC complete prohibition on handguns, not much else in terms of regulation and carry.
Click to expand...
I shoot with a friend, retired law enforcement. He has stated that even with LEOSA he has to abide by state laws for carry, ie: New York City, MA. He has told me he is better off with his concealment permit over the LEOSA and we live in Florida.
He also stated he would never even think of carrying in New England because of their gun laws
 
He also stated he would never even think of carrying in New England because of their gun laws
Click to expand...

VT, NH, and ME have pretty good gun laws.

The protestors showed a lot of restraint. Look at Minneapolis, Chicago, Portland.....
Click to expand...

There's no difference between what happened in D.C. yesterday and what happened in those cities last summer. Rioting is rioting, no matter who does it.
 
Please explain to me how you can get to Vermont New Hampshire and Maine without going through New Jersey or New York State
Yes I should also added Massachusetts
 
Don P said:
I shoot with a friend, retired law enforcement. He has stated that even with LEOSA he has to abide by state laws for carry, ie: New York City, MA. He has told me he is better off with his concealment permit over the LEOSA and we live in Florida.
Click to expand...
Legally, he is incorrect. That's clearly established by the opening words of the LEOSA.

In practical terms, it may come down to, "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." Which means he might be arrested and have to win in court, and I can understand preferring not to become a test case.
 
Please explain to me how you can get to Vermont New Hampshire and Maine without going through New Jersey or New York State
Yes I should also added Massachusetts
Click to expand...

Carefully. I was responding to the blanket statement about New England gun laws.
 
Please explain to me how you can get to Vermont New Hampshire and Maine without going through New Jersey or New York State
Yes I should also added Massachusetts
Click to expand...

Physically, I think by airplane is the most commonly used method. You can also do it by boat. :D

What went on at the Capitol yesterday was deplorable. We should all be upset about it, and I have the same opinion about not respecting the rule of law no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.

Both sides have let slip their fanatics this past year, to the detriment of us all. :o:(:mad:
 
Anyone passing through NJ or NY should be protected by FOPA, but the gun has to be unloaded and in a locked case.
 
Don P said:
I shoot with a friend, retired law enforcement. He has stated that even with LEOSA he has to abide by state laws for carry, ie: New York City, MA. He has told me he is better off with his concealment permit over the LEOSA and we live in Florida.
He also stated he would never even think of carrying in New England because of their gun laws
Click to expand...


ME, NH, and VT all have constitutional carry. I get that MA is part of New England (New York and New Jersey are not part of New England btw) but I can’t help but roll my eyes at the number of times I’ve read this exact blanket comment about how New England has strict gun laws when it’s obvious the people making these comments don’t really know how diverse even New England is when it comes to gun laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TunnelRat said:
ME, NH, and VT all have constitutional carry. I get that MA is part of New England (New York and New Jersey are not part of New England btw) but I can’t help but roll my eyes at the number of times I’ve read this exact blanket comment about how New England has strict gun laws when it’s obvious the people making these comments don’t really know how diverse even New England is when it comes to gun laws.
Click to expand...
Maine's "constitutional" (permitless) carry has a "gotcha." Carry in state parks requires a Maine carry permit. Since carry in national parks defers to the law of the state in which the national park is located, that means carry in Acadia National Park requires a Maine permit.

https://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/sites/maine.gov.dps.msp/files/inline-files/LD 652 Summary.pdf

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/12/title12sec1803.html

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/12/title12sec756.html
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Maine's "constitutional" (permitless) carry has a "gotcha." Carry in state parks requires a Maine carry permit. Since carry in national parks defers to the law of the state in which the national park is located, that means carry in Acadia National Park requires a Maine permit.

https://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/sites/maine.gov.dps.msp/files/inline-files/LD 652 Summary.pdf

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/12/title12sec1803.html

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/12/title12sec756.html
Click to expand...


If that meets your definition of a state whose carry laws are so restrictive that you wouldn’t bother carrying there, then more power to you. As far as I’m concerned the remark to which I was responding is still a typical exaggeration caused by a stereotype that people don’t bother to investigate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top