Reason behind gun ban in federal buildings

Y

Yahtzee4U

Inactive
I find it odd that the U.S. Gov, which should be the bastion of our constitutional rights, does NOT allow ccw permit holders to carry a gun into any Federal building. It simply seems very ironic to me that taxpayers aren't allowed to enter federal buildings armed (or maybe it's just common sense, who knows!)

Does anyone know of the reason behind this? What was the precedent? I tried to do some looking up but couldn't find the reasons behind it.
 
It's because they are the elite !! They also know that many hate them and they don't want to become targets !
 
"It's because they are the elite !! They also know that many hate them and they don't want to become targets !"

True enough besides that they are afraid you might start a REVOLUTION or not pay your taxes
 
Guns are themselves a direct source of power, as well as they can empower people.

There are those that do not like the "other side" having such power. Thats why so many governments around the world are so afraid of private gun ownership.

Our feds at least want to remain on top within their own structures and, simply because they can and said so.

I do believe that weapons should be controlled in any court or law enforcement facility. I know I woud not want to be seated in a jury with emotionally charged people/family in attendance who may be carrying guns, legally or not.
 
Liberals and most law enforcement officials fear armed citizens.

They know that 1 in 100,000 will do them harm.

So, in their mind, it is better (i.e., safer for themselves) to prohibit ALL from having guns than to risk that 1 in 100,000 chance of being shot.

Understand that their banning YOUR right to posses a gun does not cost THEM anything.

It could cost YOU your life, car, or wallet, but they are willing for you to take that risk.
 
Ironically, it wouldn't stop an armed individual or group from going in anyway.

Odd.

--Wag--
 
No, but it keeps people who carry from spontaneously whipping out their pistol and shooting the offending federal worker that might occur as a form of office rage...akin to otherwise normally law abiding citizens who end up shooting others as a matter of road rage.

It will also keep the law abiding idiots from having NDs because they were fiddling with their guns whilst waiting in line and such.

These things can and have happened. Now, are such regulations really stopping very many incidents? Nope. Are they going to stop the determined bad guy? Nope. Of course, no regulations stop a determined bad guy.
 
I think they're flattering themselves if they think I'm going to use my carry gun in a federal building. Sometimes I feel like knocking some sense into them but have always been able to resist it.
Funny but sad thing about federal buildings, especially courts. I don't need to bring a gun, there are plenty of them already there.
 
The government has a duty and a responsibility to uphold and support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the government is obligated by its very existance to support the ideals of these two documents and to set the example for the nation concerning rights.

The federal ban only stops law abiding citizens and prevents the rare incident of accident, temper or idiocy concerning the use of firearms.

The odds of these accidents, angers and idiotic moves is no greater or less for the average law abiding person than it is at Chinamart or any other institution where the masses interact, with the exception of the court room floor itself.

A determined person or group of people can simply start firing before they get past security or a myriad of other things such as the use of arson or whatever. (illustration not an advocation)

What I do see occuring no matter what the outcome is people are awakening and becoming concerned about the Constitution and Rights and it seems to be in the news more and more everyday. The debate of what are rights are and where the limits of government power are can only spring healthly debate that any freedom loving nation must be willing to have.

Maybe we should require all government workers capable of bearing arms to be armed at work and to train with arms and then eliminate the ban laws.... I would call it leading the way....
 
As I've commented previously, the VA hospital I go to recently (early this year, or no farther back than late 2010) sprouted signs at ALL driveway entrances onto the property as well as all door entrances into the building reminding us that no weapons are allowed. Previously, I had discussed the weapons issue with a captain of the VA police force and he had said if I have firearms locked in the car (so I can proceed from the hospital to the range), it's okay. I asked again after the new signs went up, and now they tell me absolutely no firearms anywhere on the property. Which is a significant inconvenience for me.

But ... the point is the signs specifically cite 18 USC 930. And 18 USC 930 contains a specific exception for "lawful purposes." I don't want to be the test case but it would seem to me, especially now that the SCOTUS has ruled that bearing arms for personal self defense is a "core" right protected by the 2nd Amendment, that self defense carry by a person holding a carry license/permit certainly should fall under the exception for lawful purposes.

Then I vaguely recall a somewhat recent thread in which it was mentioned that the VA hospitals actually derive their authority to ban weapons from some other part of Federal law. If so, I'd appreciate it if someone could cite the reference again, because I didn't make note of it.

If there is another provision covering the VA facilities, what's the legal effect of them banning weapons, which they have the authority to do, but posting signs citing a section that provides an exception even though they have access to another section that does NOT offer exceptions?

Confused? Join the club.
 
VA

Well I guess I'm not 100% sure of what your asking Aguila, but I too spend some time at the local VA for clinical hours I need to do, and I remember in our orientation day they specifically said no firearms on campus exc exc. I assume they can say this because they are a federal employer. ANY federal employer may tell you that you can't have guns in the building/and or parking lot (according to the NRA instructors).

Thanks for the responses guys, I mean I understand not allowing guns in buildings anywhere where there are/is alcohol being served, children, criminals, or POTUS, but other than that....
 
Yahtzee4U said:
Well I guess I'm not 100% sure of what your asking Aguila,
Click to expand...
I guess I'm asking two things:

1) The easy one: Is there another section of Federal law (or Federal regulations) besides 18 USC 930 that empowers the VA to ban firearms from their premises?

2) The hard one: 18 USC 930 is the Federal regulation every agency (other than the Postal Service) cites in prohibiting weapons on their premises. But 18 USC 930 contains the following VERY important exception:

(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—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
Click to expand...
So, isn't lawfully carrying a firearm, for which I hold a state-issued license, for the purpose of self defense a "lawful purpose"? Thus, I believe that the widely cited 18 USC 930, if tested in court (and I cannot afford to be the test case) would likely NOT hold up if applied to a person lawfully carrying with a CHL.

BUT ... in another thread here a few months ago, I think someone mentioned that there's a separate section of Federal law (or regulations) that also allows the VA to prohibit weapons. So the crux of my question is this: If the VA has authority under some OTHER section to prohibit weapons, but all their signs cite 18 USC 930 and don't mention any other law or regulation, if someone were busted for carrying on VA premises and invoked the exception I quoted above, could the VA turn around and then claim the person is still an offender because of this other law/regulation .. that they did NOT provide any warning about?
 
AB, as I'm sure you're quite well aware, unless a law states otherwise, the federales are not required to notify you of the existance of a law or what one must do to comply.
 
Found it: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=408921&highlight=veterans+hospital

Post #37.

So the crux of my question is, if 18 USC 930 is what the signs all cite, but 18 USC 930 has an exception for "lawful purposes," but the VA has other authority to prohibit weapons on their property, would a bust for weapons possession on the property hold up in court given that their own signage cited a section of the United State Code that (seemingly) exempts lawful carry?
 
Last edited:
Pittsburgh PA; mid 1990s; OK City 1995, IRS office attack...

There are many valid reasons why firearms or concealed weapons are not allowed in US govt office buildings & property.
Just a few examples I can recall include a older US Navy veteran upset with the US Dept of Veterans' Affairs office in downtown Pittsburgh PA. The former sailor built a homemade zipgun in his tool shed, took a special charter van into the federal office building, went to the VA benefits office & started blasting.
Several VA employees were hurt in the shooting incident.
Another 1990s event was the deranged man who shot & killed 2 sworn, armed federal LE officers. The US Capital Police members were both US military veterans(one was a combat veteran of SE Asia).
A nutcase flew a small aircraft into a big IRS office in Texas a few years ago.
Finally, don't forget Tim McVeigh, the US Army combat veteran & Bronze Star awardee, who was convicted of blowing up the Arthur Murrah Federal Building.

So yeah, I can understand why some restrictions are put on private citizens in some federal buildings.
In closing, I would add that some FPS(Federal Protective Service) 083 police and some contract security guards are a bit over-zealous or rude but that's more of a service issue or personal problem with the armed officers.
ClydeFrog
 
But in all of those cited examples. Did the sign, or the law behind it, do the trick! So why prevent the law abiding members of society from possessing a weapon at those sites (with some exceptions of course). Not logical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top