What about a firearm locked in a vehicle at a VA medical facility?

The fact that the statute referenced in 930 uses the word "IN" I would think makes no difference, if the sign is posted at the entrance to the VA parking area, where all vehicles come in at this particular VA facility. So I doubt the
statute using the word "IN" would provide an adequate defense in court.
If however I should become a crime victim anywhere on VA property after I come in, I will photograph this sign, and use it in a lawsuit to recover damages from the VA for failure to provide adequate security on property
under their control and on which they deliverately make law abiding citisens
be disarmed. I will not break the law by igonoring the sign.
 
Self defence is a lawful purpose.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The phrase is intended to cover security the VA might hire or have, and does not grant a license to violate federal law.

Try it at a post office and see how that goes for you.


I will photograph this sign, and use it in a lawsuit to recover damages from the VA for failure to provide adequate security on property
Click to expand...

And you will promptly lose unless you can prove that the danger was well beyond normal and that VA was aware of the danger.

You could get hit by lightning, you want to sue the VA because 'Mother Nature' decided your time was up?
 
I'm struck by a couple of squirrelly things here. First:
United States Code Annotated said:
(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. . . . .

(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d). . . . .

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

18 U.S.C.A. § 930 (West)(emphasis suppplied)
Click to expand...
If someone has read this thread, do they not now have "actual notice" of subsections (a) and (e)? I see no requirement that the notice come from a sign posted at the specific facility.

Second:
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to-- . . . .

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. . . . .

(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

18 U.S.C.A. § 930 (West)(empasis supplied)
Click to expand...
Does it strike anyone else as odd that the drafters considered the possibility that someone might be hunting inside a federal building?:p
 
I go to the local VA hospital.

A couple of years ago I had this discussion with a captain on the VA police force at the "facility." Two (or three) years ago he said unloaded, locked in the car was okay but don't bring it into the building. (I knew that.)

Fast forward to somewhere between six months and a year ago, and new signs appeared at every driveway entrance to the property, with the gun in a red circle & slash, and the standard language from the law. On my last visit I stopped by the campus police office and had the same conversation. This time the OD happened to be in a conversation with the commanding officer, which they were willing to interrupt for my question. And the answer was -- the entire property, including the parking lot, is the "facility." Absent some sort of probable cause they won't search a visitor's vehicle, but one cannot predict when Murphy might create some situation that might give rise to a semblance of probable cause. If they find a gun in a vehicle anywhere on the property, they will arrest and they will prosecute.

That was the official answer. Personally, I am of the opinion that lawful carry for self defense by a holder of a carry permit (in states where such is required) should satisfy the language in the law about "other lawful purposes," but the campus cop chief didn't see it that way and clearly did not want to be asked to think about it. In his mind it's black-and-white: gun=arrest. And since I am unwilling to become the test case, I either don't plan on going directly to the range after a visit to the VA hospital, or I park on the street outside the campus if I have a firearm in the vehicle.
 
Does it strike anyone else as odd that the drafters considered the possibility that someone might be hunting inside a federal building?
Click to expand...

Hunting at a federal facility, yes :D I think they occasionally will have bow hunting at my facility to thin the deer herd a bit. Several federal facilities have shooting ranges and the like open to the public, although I do not know of any of the inside the building ranges being open to the public. My facility has the big "no weapon" signs at the gates, not on each building.
 
"And you will promptly lose unless you can prove that the danger was well beyond normal and that VA was aware of the danger."


One runs the risk of losing any time a lawsuit if filed. I have been involved in many of them over the years. Awhile back a lawsuit was filed against the US Postal Service to compel them to change their regulations.

Regarding the VA I am referring to, I have heard there have been at least two rapes committed on VA property, and drug activity is not uncommon. This parking lot covers a large area. I make it a point to arrive early and park close to the VA ER. Many people think that the VA has sovreign immunity. They do not. However, I would guess that in Lousiana, that it might be more dfficult to win such a case than it would be in Texas. Part of the process of trying to force change, is to undertake such lawsuits, and to
cause as much publicity as possible. The VA would have a difficult time
defending such a lawsuit in my opinion. So my view is that once the no gun signs go up, they become liable for adequate security which I do not think they have.
 
"Regarding the VA I am referring to, I have heard there have been at least two rapes committed on VA property, and drug activity is not uncommon. "

"Heard" is not going to cut it in trying to establish a hazard that VA should have taken steps to rectify, nor "drug activity is not uncommon" without some solid evidence.

It is VERY hard to establish liability against the federal government for the actions of third parties not under their control.

You MUST prove they NEW of the danger and failed to take ANY steps to rectify the problem.

It is a very high burden.
 
"It is VERY hard to establish liability against the federal government for the actions of third parties not under their control."

Just one lawsuit, and a bit of publicity, and the VA would not be able to hire enough police officers, to provide a police escourt for the veterans who ask for one, and just a few video recordings of crime on their premises, would be presentable. I suppose they have some federal law against video taping crime taking place on their premises. Since I did not see the rapes, does not
mean that they did not happen. I do know that some of the VA employees are concerned.

One gunshop in Shreveport has established a business of renting space to those who want to store their guns while on federal property, but I choose toa arrive before daylight even for an afternoon appointment, and get a parking place right outside the building. Of course Shreveport has quite a reputation for both being "anti-gun" and also having record high crime and
carjackings. I used to spend a lot of money in Lousiana on my trips there
but because of federal restrictions on CCW carrying on that property, I
just don't shop any place in Lousiana, choosing to purchase my food, gas, in Texas before I travel there, since I don't intend to put myself at the disposal of criminals.

I was also advised that it would be difficult to win a class action lawsuit against a State government some years ago, and I invested much time to document evidence of violation of the law, to help bring about a successful
class action suit. That suit was lost by the State, and quite costly.
I worked at a lawfirm for many years, and prior to becoming involled,
I documented thoroughly point by point over a periiod of several years and provide that information I had to the attorneys who filed that suit.

As you say,l "Just heard" won't cut it, but getting the proof is not an
unsurmountable untertaking. I seem to remember the problems of the
VA system, and the problems at Walter Reed Hospital coming to light
some years ago.
 
Welcome to The Firing Line, TexasJustice7! (At least, I think I recall you showing up here rather recently . . . )

It's not as simple as whether the VA has immunity or not. It's just not a yes or no question. The VA's attorneys will argue that they do have immunity, either sovereign, qualified (for the individual employees), or under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or over other law that just isn't dawning on me at the moment. Once they assert the immunity, and rest assured that their lawyers are very well versed in immunity law, you'll have to demonstrate that the federal government has specifically waived immunity on the kind of case you're bringing, or that your case, for whatever reason, falls outside the scope of the immunity. Their lawyers will beat that immunity drum as loud and as long as they can. I would.

I also don't think it will be enough to say, "they wouldn't let me carry my gun, and some 3rd party attacked me. You'll have to be able to make the case that the VA had some duty to protect you. This is a scenario that often comes up in jail cases, or where someone is in custody. The VA will argue that you're not in the custody of the VA, so they don't have a duty to protect you. I recognize that the prohibition on carrying guns greatly reduces one's ability to defend oneself, but the VA's refusal to permit guns doesn't necessarily create an obligation to protect you.

Such a case is not insurmountable, but it is very, very difficult.
 
Spats McGee, what about attacking the prohibition on the grounds that lawful, licensed carry for self-defense IS a lawful purpose, and the law cited in the "Go Weapons Allowed" signs specifically includes an exemption for "other lawful purposes"?
 
"QUOTE
Welcome to The Firing Line, TexasJustice7! (At least, I think I recall you showing up here rather recently . . . )

It's not as simple as whether the VA has immunity or not. It's just not a yes or no question. The VA's attorneys will argue that they do have immunity, either sovereign, qualified (for the individual employees), or under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or over other law that just isn't dawning on me at "

Yes, I am aware of the difficulties, in such an undertaking and sometimies adverse publicity is better than legal action. I would argue inadequate security and such claims under the Federal tort claims act may be properly filed in the jurisdiction where the negligence occurred, or where the claimant resides. Since I live in Texas and am familiar with texas lawfirms
that advertise to handle such cases I would certainly file in Texas had I
damages, even if the claims orginated in other states. Of course the VA
has competent attorneys to argue their side. VA Hospitals even allocate
funds to pay for damaged for liability. If they did not expect to lose any
such cases they would not include it in their budget. I wonder what the
VA is doing regarding the cases where many veterans were exposed to
HIV due to dirty dental equipment at some VA hospitals. While I am on
VA premises I encourage other veterans who travel there from Texas
not to stop anywhere in Lousiana.

But on this subject, one pro gun orginization was informing its members
that they had filed a lawsuit to challenge US Postal regulations regarding
no guns on the premises. In Tennessee two criminals recently murdered
two postal employees making the national news. When I spoke with postal employees where I live about it I suggested to them they ought to put up signs that law abiding citisens have been disarmed for the convenience of
the criminals. I was quite suprised that one employee totally agreed with me. Later when we had an armed robbery at the library about a block away, I said to him, that guy sure was dumb, he could have gotten a lot
more money here at the post office than he got at the library (about $100)
They caught him at a walmart in a neighboring town cashing the coins in a
coin machine.

Also here in Texas we had the legislature trying to pass a right to carry
concealed on college campuses. I am for this change, but I never go to
college campuses anymore.

I go nowhere but places where I have to go such as the VA & Post Office
where I cannot carry. At the same time I do not break the law.
 
I think that a simple factial challenge is stronger than a failure to protect claim, but they're not mutually exclusive.

First of all, I suspect that if this were really to be litigated, we'd need more than just the one statute to look at. I suspect that if we dig down into federal law & the Code of Federal Regulations far enough, we'll find some grant of authority to the VA to manage its own property, including the exclusion of guns. That's the statute we'd need to find, to see exactly what the more specific statute would say.

Going only on what we have right now (& I'm afraid that I don't have time to rummage through Westlaw today), I'd be cautious of such an attack. The specific clause states that there's an exception for "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." 18 U.S.C.A. § 930 (West). I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek earlier, but I don't see how the VA can ban firearms on its property based on 18 U.S.C.A. § 930. That section defines a federal facility as "a building or part thereof." I'm sure the VA would argue that the parking lot is "part of" the building, but that's a stretch in my mind.

@TexasJustice7 -- the government is immune from negligence claims.
 
"in-cheek earlier, but I don't see how the VA can ban firearms on its property based on 18 U.S.C.A. § 930. That section defines a federal facility as "a building or part thereof." I'm sure the VA would argue that the parking lot is "part of" the building, but that's a stretch in my mind."

Are you interpreting that a sign at the entrance of a VA Hospital Main Parking lot, would be using 18 U.S.C.A.& 930 as the authority for the posting of the sign. Some of the clinics have no posting in the parking lots, but the
VA Hospital main entrance does have such a sign and it refers to all VA property.

One VA police officer told me it was okay though to check the gun in at the VA police office on arrival, but another at an outlying clinic said not oK on any of their property. I figure the problem would not be an aggressive poliice officer out searching all vehicles. The problem would be if someone had an accident that when the driver's license is run they know you have a CCW. If they then ask where the gun is, they can and might search the vehicle, and that would result in an arrest. Based on what I read, I do not challenge the authority of the VA to post nor to enforce such a sign, I just expect to hold them accountable, even if I have to lose a suit if I am a crime victim on their property. One has to be ready to pay for the lottery ticket when you try to win a lottery prize. If I could not win the suit, I would try to bring as much advese publicity as I could against the VA facility, through the press. Enough veterans could start requesting and demanding a police escourt every trip they made to the VA facility, if crime gets bad enough.
 
Maybe the more appropriate approach is to park near the facility but off federal land and then vote in some people more favorable to the 2A...

:)
 
"Maybe the more appropriate approach is to park near the facility but off federal land and then vote in some people more favorable to the 2A... "

In fact I do that sometimes. But at least one gunshop in Shreveport helps gun owners out by allowing them to store a gun for a fee. Maybe some of them will start springing up right outside federal facilities. But at this point it is simpler for me to just not stop in Lousiana. I am sure the businesses
in that State are thriving and can afford to lose the business of gunowners
who don't stop because they have been disarmed. Guess the gunshop down there is doing well. I plan to stop by and visit that gunshop on the way back from the VA on some trip down there. I am thankful though that I live in Texas where we have the right to use deadly force to protect property which is not the case in some states without the Texas Castle doctrine.
I followed the Joe Horn case awhile back very closely. Texas has a recipriocal agreement with Lousiana, but if one shoots a carjacker in Lousiana one has to be inside their vehicle. I just avoid Lousiana but used
to spend a lot of money there years ago. Texas needs our dollars more anyway, and we ought to support the state where we reside.
:)
 
Spats McGee said:
First of all, I suspect that if this were really to be litigated, we'd need more than just the one statute to look at. I suspect that if we dig down into federal law & the Code of Federal Regulations far enough, we'll find some grant of authority to the VA to manage its own property, including the exclusion of guns. That's the statute we'd need to find, to see exactly what the more specific statute would say.
Click to expand...
Well, it has become better known in the past couple of years that the Postal Service has its own regulation that allows it to ban weapons irrespective of the exceptions in 18 U.S.C.A. § 930, but nobody that I've ever seen has alleged any parallel authority to the VA. The local Social Security office also has a 'No Weapons" sign citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 930. One would think that if the VA were basing their authority to ban on some other law or regulation, their signs would cite the law or regulation that gives them the authority.

I wish someone would challenge some gooberment facility over disarming with 18 U.S.C.A. § 930 as the cited authority, but I'm not in a position to volunteer to be the test case.
 
TexasJustice7 & Aguila Blanca,
It was my understanding that the VA in question had posted the entrance(s) to the parking lot, using 18 U.S.C. s930 as the legal basis for its authority to do so. I'm not sure that s930 gives them any authority to post the parking lot. It's very specific in its definition of a "federal facility." If we were talking about a parking deck, that's arguably a "part of a building," which could fall within the scope of s930. A parking lot is a different kettle of fish, though. If we're talking about the building proper, then my theory goes out the window.

I might have some time to dig through statutes and the CFR today, and if I do, I'll let you know what I find.

Edited to add:
(13) Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.

38 C.F.R. § 1.218
Click to expand...

Looks like they certainly do have the authority. Scrap my idea, then.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
(13) Weapons and explosives. No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
38 C.F.R. § 1.218


And that includes things like Pepper Spray, Scissors, knives. I guess it does not include a good heavy walking stick. Since the regulations like they are
each time I am at the VA for a period of time, I have a medical problem that requires that I have scissors. I don't try sneaking them in, instead, I
make it a point when I am in the hospital to get them to issue me a pair each time I am there. Then when I leave, I check with the VA Police to see if it is okay to take the scissors they issue me are okay to take out of the
hospital with me, since I need them on the way home. I think their regs
permit leaving scissors in the vehicle and knives, (no guns).

I hope they put extra mioney in the budget to pay for all the scissors I
get from the VA. Unless they change their regs, I guess they will have to
keep issuing them to me. :)
 
"You know, I've seen several references here on TFL lately to walking sticks and canes. It reminded me of something I saw on the internet while browsing a while back. How about an injected polymer walking stick? http://www.ltspecpro.com/products/31...ing-stick.aspx "

I took a look at that walking stick, which looks like it would do as a good substitute where someone is restricted from carrying a gun, such as on VA Property. I am supposed to carry a walking stick all the time because I have had a few falls due to low blood pressure (as well as high),. But normally I never carry the walking stick if I am carryng concealed because I want my gun hand free. But at the VA since I can't carry a gun, I do carry the walking stick and it is at least some protection.

That cane you referenced though is something. It might not be legal.
I do know that if you alter a walking cane, and say load it down with metal of some kind that then the walking stick so altered is considered a deadly weapon. This might fall into that category too and might be illegfal on
VA property.

But a friend of mine sent me a picture of a cell phone that holds 4 twenty two cartridge bullets that is being encountered by LEO in Europe. It is
quite heavy but just to look at it you would not know it was a cell phone.
I think the numeral 5 to 7 fire the weapon. I guess the VA would have to
restrict all cell phones to prevent that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top