Reason behind gun ban in federal buildings

The simple fact is that the laws (or regulations) as written are more about control than they are about safety. Look at 18 USC 930. Paragraph (a) says "Thou shalt not have a weapon here." But ... there's an exception to paragraph (a) a bit farther.

Paragraph (b), on the other hand, says "Thou shalt not bring a weapon here to carry out an evil deed." And the exception does NOT apply to paragraph (b).

So ... if it's illegal to bring a weapon onto the premises with the intention of doing dastardly deeds ... why do we need paragraph (a) at all?

And why can't the corresponding law or regulation or whatever it is that applies specifically to the VA likewise prohibit using a weapon for harm, rather than establishing a blanket ban that runs counter to a fundamental, Constitutional right?
 
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.

I agree with Sailor1911.

Acts of violence are always going to occur and I am aware of no government in any time period of recorded history that enacted laws that were not broken or violated. I do not know of any nations of any time period that did not have murder and crime due to laws preventing it. Even nations in asia where in some places being found with illegal drugs is a death sentence (no repeat offenders)guess what it still occurs.

You simply cannot legislate safety concerning human actions where one is determined to cause harm and in the attempt to do so Rights are often trampled on. No such creature exist as absolute safety and security.

Want to have reasonable safety, carry a firearm and quit trusting law to provide all forms of protection, obey the laws but carry.
 
I don't hate our elected officials. I've even met some of them. Why would anyone even suggest that someone hates an office holder that was freely elected in a democratic election. Or do you not believe in such things? We've gone through this before in this country but why does anyone believe that armed rebellion, which someone else has already brought up, or asassination somehow results in a gentler, more open government?
 
But in all of those cited examples. Did the sign, or the law behind it, do the trick!

Nope, but in how many cases did it do the trick? I have been in the Soc Sec office here and in Dallas several times. People seem to get angry there with some regularity. I certainly have no doubt that not being armed has kept numerous incidents of spontaneous lethal force acts from occurring against those "government elites."

I don't know how many of you have been to such an office, but I would be hard pressed to consider any of them to be "elites" as the vast majority are just simply working folks like the rest of us, only their paycheck comes from a different employer than yours.
 
No matter how responsible you believe you (or your fellow man) are, law abiding people can get upset and resort to violence when provoked...and I think I've been close to being that provoked at the DMV before.

I think you might be onto something though Aguila...see if you can find someone who is willing to get arrested...I might be willing to take their case...
 
Rights leave it to you to choose or not to use, as you see fit, laws mandate and quite often leave big tire tracks over rights. - See California, Chicago

You may feel you might resort to whatever, not all of us fit that description nor should our rights be restricted because of what someone else might or might not do, further if everyone in the office was armed how far are you really going to go?
 
SSA & VA offices...

I'm a former US government employee(US Dept of Veterans Affairs) & I've also been in a few SSA & VAMCs in other locations.
When I had to deal with some SSA issues in my area, I went to the main office near me. To be honest, some of the people in the waiting room were making me feel uneasy. A few were clearly drunk or intoxicated. Some acted unstable or off their meds. A few smelled like they haven't had a shower since Clinton was POTUS.
My point is that not every person in the general public is going to follow laws or rules. Citizens should have the lawful right to the 2A & to bear arms but some public places like courts, office buildings, jails, schools, etc need these mandates to keep the peace & have law and order.
I'd rather have an alert deputy or armed security guard "watching my six" then square off with every nutcase, wierdo or wacko in the joint.
 
My point is that not every person in the general public is going to follow laws or rules. Citizens should have the lawful right to the 2A & to bear arms but some public places like courts, office buildings, jails, schools, etc need these mandates to keep the peace & have law and order.
I'd rather have an alert deputy or armed security guard "watching my six" then square off with every nutcase, wierdo or wacko in the joint.

Being insane is a medical disqualification to carry a firearm. I have been to my local VA medical center several times and yes it’s kind of an adventure. Still the Bill of Rights gives me the Right to Bear Arms and if we are to allow this kind of regulation then what is to say our other rights can’t be suspended just because we enter an area or building.


I understand you can’t just walk into a crowded building and announce "Fire" when no fire exist but what if we applied the same level of restriction to Free Speech that we have applied to firearms you would probably have masses of people protesting in the street. Imagine walking into a area or building and you have no right to speak AT ALL which would be the same level of restriction we have with firearms.

But let’s take this one step further for the point of illustration.


The people you see at the VA looking for treatment are all Veterans who sacrificed health, limbs and lifespan to protect our nation and its freedoms. Many may have a drug problem, many may be drunk, some insane and some gravely injured or diseased to the point that you wonder how they can even function. This is the price these veterans have paid for our rights and freedoms and to keep us safe from the evils of this world and many of these problems are directly related to the stress and horror these patriots endured while serving our nation. Yet we not only deny the unfit and mentally ill from carrying weapons here we also prohibit the less disabled and even those with no physical or mental disabilities. The price paid for these rights is right before our eyes and yet we have no thought of their payment for these rights but rather worry about some illusion of a sense of security.


I myself walk with a limp and I have been directed by a doctor to not run as my knee deteriorates from too many years or running and carrying heavy loads and jumping off the back of 5 ton military trucks in fully body armor with a rucksack and weapon. I have worked guarding some of our nation’s most destructive weapons and done other duties for my nation that required secrecy, integrity, honor and reliability and yet I too even with advanced weapons training and a CCW permit have no legal right to carry in the VA despite a 2 decade + spotless record.

So once I leave the confines of the VA or the Post Office or other place that I am legally prohibited from carrying a weapon I am stuck. If someone or a group of thugs wants to harm or rob me I have little ability to run more than a few yards and I have been prohibited by law from carrying a weapon that the Bill of Rights of our nation says I have a right to carry in my own defense.
I am prohibited from enjoying the right that I spent my very body and youth to defend. - Tell me is that not a crime on some level?


I understand people want to feel safe and I understand some people have real problems that may make them a danger to others but once you get past the TSA officers at the VA screening desk who is there to stop the mentally ill from taking your life. Prohibited people need to be prohibited until they are healthy enough to carry, and no further.

We once had a document talking about inalienable rights; we need to get back to being that nation... My right to bear arms should not be confined due to someone feelings when I am on public lands or in a public place or public building. We paid for our rights with our lives, our blood and or bodys what more must we do?
 
Last edited:
" No matter how responsible you believe you (or your fellow man) are, law abiding people can get upset and resort to violence when provoked...and I think I've been close to being that provoked at the DMV before. "

And there you have it folks, the reason firearms are prohibited in fed offices is because the service is so bad. ..

In other news, does anyone know when the fed building ban was instituted? Were post offices later added to the ban or was that from the start? None of the post offices I've been in lately have any "no gun" signage , has anyone seen such signs or is this a "you are supposed to know" law?

Also, some rural post offices are housed in part of a larger building, would the entire building be off limits or just the post office portion? ( I'm thinking just the post office portion )
 
BGutzman said:
I understand you can’t just walk into a crowded building and announce "Fire" when no fire exist ...
Sure you can.

But, just as you have the freedom to do so, you also have the freedom to accept that doing so will get you arrested for making a false report, and possibly for inciting a riot.
 
I work in a federal office. The ban has nothing to do with your rights or perceptions of rights. It has to do with the safety of the employees and other citizens who are there on lawful business.

When you come to see me on federal business, I appreciate it when you don't bring a weapon with you. You don't need it. I'm going to treat you with respect and do what I can for you. But I have the obligation to perform my duties and tell you the same thing I tell any other citizen without having to be concerned you may pull a weapon or become belligerent. I'll support your right to carry in a federal building just as soon as you can personally guarantee the demeanor, behavior, intellect, educational level, and capacity for reason of every other citizen.
 
When you come to see me on federal business, I appreciate it when you don't bring a weapon with you. You don't need it. I'm going to treat you with respect and do what I can for you. But I have the obligation to perform my duties and tell you the same thing I tell any other citizen without having to be concerned you may pull a weapon or become belligerent. I'll support your right to carry in a federal building just as soon as you can personally guarantee the demeanor, behavior, intellect, educational level, and capacity for reason of every other citizen.

You express a need to feel safe.... so do I but the difference is I have a right to bear arms which is how I feel safe as I have no guarntee that you will act as you are requesting of others and you could go "postal" (no disrespect to the post office intended).... The point of the 2A in part is you have no guarntee of safety except the "ARMS" you are legally allowed to own have and carry in your defense. Further all federal employees that I am aware of have sworn an oath to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States... This oath does not just refer to the physical document but it also refers to protecting and defending the meaning of its contents.

If we could legislate proper human behavior into being a reality 100% of the time we would have no criminals but unfortunately reality is far different... Lots of laws on the books about not murdering people and commiting crimes and similar laws against speeding and yet all these laws and we still have these crimes....... The laws banning firearms only stop law abiding citizens...

You have a choice where you work I do not have a choice about going to most government office to attend to whatever need. The other part of the equation is if someone truly wants to do some evil they can simply wait to whatever person leaves the building.... It is only an illusion of security against criminals and a force field of law against lawful citizenry.
 
Last edited:
What nonsense. When someone comes to my place of work to discuss a business matter, then make a point of unbuttoning your jacket so I can see they're are packing, raise their voice when they don't get what they want, even though it's illegal to give it to them, tell me I'm an 'elite', 'fat cat', or whatever rhetoric they believe in, 'out to get you', ad nauseum, or believe I'm likely to 'go postal', they are using a firearm to intimidate, back up a paranoid belief system, instead of being a rational adult capable of doing adult business. You personally may be the most patriotic, rational citizen in the country, but the law of averages apply. When some people interact with what they perceive as Big Brother, their behavior and thought processes change. Not to mention if you get to carry, I think I should get to carry, too. Now how do you think that's going to work out down at the IRS or SSA?
 
What nonsense. When someone comes to my place of work to discuss a business matter, then make a point of unbuttoning your jacket so I can see they're are packing, raise their voice when they don't get what they want, even though it's illegal to give it to them, tell me I'm an 'elite', 'fat cat', or whatever rhetoric they believe in, 'out to get you', ad nauseum, or believe I'm likely to 'go postal', they are using a firearm to intimidate, back up a paranoid belief system, instead of being a rational adult capable of doing adult business. You personally may be the most patriotic, rational citizen in the country, but the law of averages apply. When some people interact with what they perceive as Big Brother, their behavior and thought processes change.

I am not saying that you’re making up facts to fit your need but I have never ever seen a person with a CCW or CHL take an action such as you have described. I also think it’s interesting that you choose to use the words "paranoid belief system". So now I have to be paranoid to enjoy my rights under the constitution? Hello? That’s why it’s the constitution, so I don’t need each individual’s permission.... Its a right....

If someone really flashes a weapon as a threat display then I suggest contacting law enforcement. In my experience with CCW its unheard of..


I’m curious if we should apply your logic to our other rights if you would find them also to be of value but for the sake of the forum I will forego that question. Who knows maybe your just having a bad day.....

If the jobs truly that bad maybe its time to look for something fresh.... And no you dont have to be paranoid to want to carry a weapon....
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to me that so many protests against civilians' carrying is stated in terms similar to those of Kilimanjaro above:
The ban has nothing to do with your rights or perceptions of rights. It has to do with the safety of the employees and other citizens who are there on lawful business.

I think this is the crux of the entire debate about concealed carry. Many people feel "unsafe" thinking about having a civilian, purposes/temperment unknown, sitting across from them with a concealed weapon, and don't want to have to face the idea.

It doesn't matter that CCW supporters can demonstrate statistically that they are among the MOST law-abiding of citizens... people still think in terms of "there is a potential rampage-shooter across from me... if a ban on guns is posted, then I'm safe from him because he obviously will have been dissuaded from carrying one despite his tendency to spontaneously commit MASS MURDER".

Speaking for myself, I think someone across from me when I carry is actually safer than they'd be in front of even a LEO (if I witness the someone commit a felony in front of me that doesn't threaten my or another's life, I won't attempt an arrest, which can get rough for the suspect). And of course, if a rampage shooter just happened to step into the office while I was there...

Unlike critics of CCW that oppose the idea generally in favor of the total illusion of safety a societal ban provides, at least security in Fed buildings might actually limit or eliminate "illegal" guns (security is never breached, right?), so someone such as Kilimanjaro might actually face fewer or no guns in the office. Maybe... who knows. I think it's irrelevant. Why should Fed buildings be specially exempted? Does anyone think that someone in a mall store's complaints department is always treated respectfully and politely? What about the old canard of "fender-benders" leading to "blood in the streets"?

This is not to say I have no sympathy with Kilimanjaro... some jobs are more replete with as-... um, creeps, than others, to be sure (I've worked with psychiatric populations for over twenty years, so I've dealt with more than an average number myself), and being threatened in a fully believable way by one, or more than one, in the course of a day is a crappy way to have to spend your time. But before I'd go with a "gun-free zone" I'd actually endorse Kili's other idea... let him carry at work (however likely or unlikely it might be to implement). If someone flashed a weapon at me, to "bolster" their "argument", I'd want something better at hand than the 5 minute wait for security (assuming you could get the initial call in). Whoever it was just crossed the line from client-seeking-and-possibly-deserving-help to felon-asking-for-permanent-retirement-from-Planet-Earth.
 
So you can just wait to shoot a Fed employee when they walk out of the building, hospital, etc.

Insane right? If a non-LEO employee can't carry in a 'prohibited' area they themselves are helpless inside or outside the building.

Well many "laws" don't make sense anyway.
 
It all boils down to the same phrase that can be applied to any law on the books. Criminals are called criminals because they commit crimes. Therefore you can rightfully assume that they don't follow the laws... A law disallowing a law abiding citizen from carrying a defensive weapon at any point is dangerous IMHO, because it makes for more victims who could have stopped a situation before it escalates into a catastrophe. Legislating gun control does nothing, because if someone wants to go into a building with the specific intent of committing an assault or murder with a firearm, they will shoot the guards at the door and proceed into the building to find the selected target. regardless of laws.
 
Laws...

You don't have to agree with the laws you just have to follow them! :)
If you are unhappy with laws or rules or SOPs, then run for elected office & change them.

This is what makes America great!
;)
 
Either we have the right to bear arms everywhere or we have the right to bear arms nowhere! In other words, we either have the right to bear arms, or we merely have permission to bear arms where someone else deems it safe.

While our current horde of flimsy-spined cowards enforce a limited permission, the men who sacrificed their lives, their honors, and their fortunes to win their freedom and ours called it a right that should not be infringed. By the way, they had no fantasies about a gentle government; they had just killed thousands of men to allow the building of a civil government which respected the rights of the citizen.

The arguments for limiting CCW are the same as the arguments for eliminating CCW. Woe to the hypocrite that obtains a permit to carry a firearm then argues to keep others from carrying theirs to his place of business!
 
Back
Top