VA hospital?

44 AMP said:
I know of an incident that happened on DOE leased property. Security badge needed to get into the building, but not the parking lot.

Road rage incident, guy on his way to the facility, followed by another guy into the parking lot, where second guy produced a gun. DOE security pounced on him, took him away. Besides the assault, he was charged with gun in prohibited area. Never did find out if he was convicted, matters not.

We were all informed, you can have your gun in your car, park on the street next to the lot or park across the street, its all good. Park in the lot with a gun, big problem.
Click to expand...
I fail to see the value or purpose in having a law that prohibits possession of firearms "in" a federal facility, and specifically defines "facility" as a building, if federal agencies are going to be allowed to go beyond the law and also prohibit firearms on the outdoor property.
 
18 USC 930 d(3) contains an exemption for CCW.

The law says it does not pertain to firearms carried incident to hunting or "any lawful purpose". In Heller the Supreme Court said that self defense is not only a lawful purpose, it is a CORE lawful purpose.

Part of my ccw paperwork from FL included a statement that carrying weapon is for self defense purposes only. Therefore on the very rare occasions I find myself on federal property in FL I carry my pistol like I would anywhere else it is legal, concealed.

And I don't bother the security types with questions about points of law. I figure they are busy, I am legal, and I would rather go about my business and get on with my day.
 
Aikibiker said:
18 USC 930 d(3) contains an exemption for CCW.

The law says it does not pertain to firearms carried incident to hunting or "any lawful purpose". In Heller the Supreme Court said that self defense is not only a lawful purpose, it is a CORE lawful purpose.

Part of my ccw paperwork from FL included a statement that carrying weapon is for self defense purposes only. Therefore on the very rare occasions I find myself on federal property in FL I carry my pistol like I would anywhere else it is legal, concealed.

And I don't bother the security types with questions about points of law. I figure they are busy, I am legal, and I would rather go about my business and get on with my day.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of the language of 18 USC 930 and the "lawful purposes" exemption. As far as I know, that exemption has never been tested in a case that reached an appeals court, and I'm too old and too poor to risk becoming the test case. Morally I am 100% on board with "legal is legal" and "Concealed means concealed," but the potential downside of any sort of OOPS! is being arrested and charged. Even if I were to somehow prevail in court (which is by no means guaranteed), the legal expenses would bankrupt me.

My analysis -- which is valid for me only -- is that it's not worth the risk.
 
Don't be too sure. Regulations, which is to say, rules created by the agency itself (any agency) pursuant to its legal authority to promulgate rules and regulations, do not cover everything for everyone for all time. That can sometimes be a problem, which amounts to the vagueness in law that I mentioned earlier. Speaking of any federal agency generally, there can be local rules and regulations that differ from the rules in another locality, district or whatever, and especially can be different from a similar federal agency, like the Park Service and the Forest Service.

The point is, if you inquire about any particular detail of their regulations and it isn't specifically addressed in the rules, that particular point of the regulations may be addressed in future regulations. It may or may not be to your liking. It may be as innocent as "can I drive on the beach." It sometimes seems like it depends on the whim (or studied judgment) of whoever it is that makes the rules.

So proceed cautiously.
 
I used to harass our security about what was a "dangerous weapon" on the signs. It was friendly, because they knew me, and most agreed that it wasn't a common sense definition. But they had to enforce it, anyway.
Click to expand...
Every time I have to go to the County Driver's License Division or Sheriff's office (same building), I encounter deputies coming and going in front of the four "NO UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS, food or drink!" signs on the pillars of the portico.
The smart-mouth that I am, I always have to ask at least one of them something along the lines of:
(Deputy leaving) "Did they kick you out because of your gun or your donut?!" :eek:
(Deputy entering) "Is that coffee authorized?"
(Anybody in uniform) "Do you think this bootlace is considered a weapon? The ATF says it's a machine gun."

Out of the dozen or so times that I've even been acknowledged, I've gotten a good smile at least twice. The rest of the responses were just dirty looks. :rolleyes:
 
The purpose of these laws is really singular. The powers that be want to be able to arrest anyone who attempts to intimidate a government worker with a firearm without any questions asked. If someone is causing any sort of problem and it becomes known they have a firearm, they want to be able to immediately remove them with force or threat thereof without anyone asking questions later.

Imagine a trial where the defendants extended family shows up armed.
Someone at the VA who wants one of the doctors to write him a script.
How many have joked about taking the shotgun out to clean when expecting a visit from someone interested in their daughter? It is quite easy to intimidate with a firearm without breaking any laws if possession is legal.

These rules in government facilities are not low hanging fruit. It is going to be a while if ever. Keep in mind all hospitals deal with a significant amount of drug addiction and mental health issues. The VA hospitals are no different.

There have been incidents with firearms, including shootings, at my local VA.
 
Last edited:
johnwillliamnson062 said:
There have been incidents with firearms, including shootings, at my local VA.
Click to expand...
Thereby demonstrating the fact that such laws are useless in preventing what they are most intended to prevent.

There are no metal detectors at my VA hospital. I rarely encounter a campus cop inside the buildings, regardless of which building(s) I'm wandering through on any given day. Mostly I see them patrolling the overcrowded parking lot, putting tickets on cars that have parked in other than marked spaces because there aren't enough spaces. If I weren't interested in complying with the law, I would have no problem carrying a small arsenal into my primary or specialty care area any time I chose. If my intent was a murder-suicide, the law prohibiting me from having guns on the property (or in the building) would be entirely ineffective.
 
A couple of points- VA docs have a directive to call the VA cops if they see a knife over 3" or a gun.

The USPS won the case on appeal a few months ago. It was in Avon, Colorado. The judge ruled that the plaintiff was not aggrieved because there was plenty of on-street parking available. So, no in the po or the lot. And, no, I've never seen car searches entering a VA hospital or post office.
 
I am related, probably, though distantly, to a person who started a shootout in a country courthouse in Virginia many years ago. Some one was determined (or bound and determined, as we say) not to go to jail. I do not know it that was legal at the time or not.

Everyone keeps saying that laws are useless in preventing, well, law-breaking. Does that mean there should essentially be no laws? That condition is called anarchy. Or does anyone have any suggestion on how to prevent people from shooting up schools, courthouses, government hospitals and other government buildings and installations. Suggesting that everyone carry guns is not a solutions. Where I live, the two and only policemen killed, other than accidentally, when someone decided to start shooting at the closest police station to where I sit, a few years ago. The police department here was organized in, I think, 1939 and those have been the only two policemen killed in the line of duty, other than accidentally. A sheriff's deputy was killed in 1906 and that's it.

Or do people just say "it can't be helped"?
 
... are useless in preventing what they are most intended to prevent.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understood my post. The laws concerning government buildings are not to stop shootings, they are to stop/control attempts at intimidation without any intent to actually perpetrate violence. It allows security forces to react with maximum force whenever a firearm is discovered.
That is why the radius of VIPs restriction was used in Washington DC, not because they thought it would stop an assassin.
For this purpose it is very effective. Do the restrictions balance individual rights with security concerns? I'd say no. Do I make the laws? No. Are they going to change any time soon? Almost certainly no.
I believe in an incremental approach to loosening firearms restrictions. There are government buildings where I think the restrictions could be loosened in the next ten years. I don't think hospitals or court rooms are on that list.
 
Today in Denver- "Armed suspect taken into custody after taking nurse hostage at VA Medical Center". VA cops and DPD. Not much other info, on KDVR.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top