Reason behind gun ban in federal buildings

Is this another thread about a well-regulated militia or did I get off on the wrong floor. Let me see here. Looks like another discussion about whether or not government employees can be safe at work or not.
 
Government employees are not segregated from the general population in the Bill of Rights, so they are afforded no "special" protection. We do go to great lengths (including using guns) to protect officials that face known and potential threats, so why can't I go into the same public places with protection? As a matter of fact, I believe the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent special rights/privileges/protection for people in government because of the corruption such disparity created in the government from which they had just freed themselves.

Should the guy at the post office be taken better care of than the bum on the front steps of the post office? By the way, the same laws concerning assault protect them both with or without a gun ban. Of course a postal worker feels awful helpless when the bad guy ignores the sign. He just gets to sit there and sweat until SWAT comes up with a good plan. Oh, wait, bad guys don't ignore the signs! How silly of me! And of course none of the employees ever ignore the signs and go "postal" either! Huh; I will have to think this over some more...
 
Well, the constitution and the bill of rights were written to replace the articles of confederation, which has resulted in a national government with next to no power. But I rather imagine a lot of people here would prefer it that way.
 
Well, the constitution and the bill of rights were written to replace the articles of confederation, which has resulted in a national government with next to no power. But I rather imagine a lot of people here would prefer it that way.
Click to expand...

I didn’t realize basic rights of being a human and a citizen as outlined in our founding documents were prohibitive of a strong central government..... I thought they merely gave the government clear areas where it had little or no power.. ie limit of power...

I think that you can have a strong central government and honor the Bill of Rights and Constitution but that cannot happen until we have a re recognition that the government does have clear unsurpassable limits that it cannot exceed.
 
I am not arguing whether or not there are basic human rights but whether or not a strong central government is desirable or not. I'm not sure that there has ever been a strong government followed by a weaker (gentler, kinder, etc.) government when there had been a revolution or rebellion, which may be beside the point. About all of the civil wars and rebellions I can think of resulted in governments that were stronger and in recent years, more intrusive and controlling than what existed previously. When there have been non-violent revolutions, that didn't seem to happen, although the resulting governments may not have been all that perfect. But such things have happened a few times in the last 400 years.

But what the basic human rights are may not be as obvious as all that in the first place.
 
If I still worked in federal building I would rather be armed when the madman finds me hiding under my desk than hope SWAT gets him before he can pull the trigger. Whether it is Columbine or the recent Norway shooting we see that gun-free zones are prized targets because the madmen of the world know they can hurt a lot of people before anyone can stop them. They know they will be stopped, but their mission will be accomplished, and they work that into their plan. Nearly every madman has planned to make a statement by going out in a blaze of glory or hanging out in a court room for years. My wish is that if I become their target, I cut short their glory mission.

The madmen we fear the most seek out gun-free zones; it seems to me that you put people in an unsafe working environment when you declare it to be a gun-free zone!

I trust you with your car and your gun; please do the same for me.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Good luck with that argument.
You are invited to be the test case.

Find someone with money to burn.

"Lawful purpose" is NOT what YOU want it to mean, but what Congress intended it to mean when it passed the statute.

You "state-issued license" has no weight on Federal property unless the Feds decide to accept it (and they are not required to).
 
I don't believe anyone has to risk arrest by walking into a federal building with an otherwise legal weapon. A suit can be filed to have the policy changed and signs removed, on grounds that personal protection is justified.

Has, say, the NRA tried this?
 
There was no real reason for it,,,

The ban was a knee-jerk reaction to a few postal employees who went nuts.

So in the interest of appearing to do something,,,
Our government initiated another useless prohibition.

Why did they do it?,,,
Because they could.

Aarond (the cynic)
 
You know what confuses me the most? When we all applied for the CCW, we were checked out thru various Law Enforcment agencies to make sure we were law abiding citizens without any criminal history whatsoever. So it stands to reason that we should be the first to be trusted (over the unscrutinized at least). If we don't have a history of flying off the handle, have never commited a felony, have never hurt anyone, then what would make our own government distrust our legally licensed possession of a legal firearm anywhere?

Oh, wait...I forgot...we are discussing the US government right?
My Bad....

...still trying to reember the last time I had any business in a Federal Building. Naval Discharge in 86 I think.
 
I don't believe anyone has to risk arrest by walking into a federal building with an otherwise legal weapon. A suit can be filed to have the policy changed and signs removed, on grounds that personal protection is justified.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

You will have to establish standing to pursue action in court.
Showing actual harm is a hard bar to pass.

There are cases were the consequences of a violation are so significant you may get a court to allow things to proceed, but it is NOT an easy battle.

Things like the recent 2nd amendment cases require very carefully chosen plaintiffs who can demonstrate some level of harm from the existing law.

Theoretical harm does not sway courts very far, as in "I could get robbed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top