Validity of this sign?

[majormadmax]

Yep, under US Code, Title 18, §930, possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities is illegal!

(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.

Note that 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. As such, the sign in the parking lot is not legal under Federal law; and as far as I know it is not legal under Texas law either as it is not the required 30.06 signage.

However, the one at the entrance is!

The section is often used to prohibit firearms from being brought on military bases, but that is incorrect. The base commander can establish that restriction, but it is not stated in US Code.

Also note that the term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.

However, any government facility--to include post offices as far as I am concerned, but some debate that--fall under USC 18, §930!

Cheers! M2

 

[Bithabus]

Yep, under US Code, Title 18, §930, possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities is illegal!

Note that 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. As such, the sign in the parking lot is not legal under Federal law; and as far as I know it is not legal under Texas law either as it is not the required 30.06 signage.

However, the one at the entrance is!

The section is often used to prohibit firearms from being brought on military bases, but that is incorrect. The base commander can establish that restriction, but it is not stated in US Code.

Also note that the term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.

However, any government facility--to include post offices as far as I am concerned, but some debate that--fall under USC 18, §930!

Cheers! M2

(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.

Carrying a handgun for personal protection with a State issued license to do so is a lawful purpose.

 

[London]

There is actually some confusion over this covered here:

Concealed-carry in a post office may lead to rude awakening

 

[majormadmax]

Oh, there a lot of confusion; I don't agree with Bithabus' interpretation of the law but I didn't feel like getting into yet another debate.

All I can say is that the law is vague but the intent is clear, and if someone wants to challenge it than that's their right; but I for one have seen at least one person who was busted on base for carrying a personal weapon. Given that I work on base, and would lose my access if something like that were to occur to me, I am not going to risk it...

Same goes for the post office, it's just easier to avoid it but I am sure some would want to take a stand on the issue and I wish them all the best!

Cheers! M2

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I wouldn't go as far as to not use the business.I would however carry on the property anyway, as it is not the proper signage if i absolutely needed to be there. I haven't been to a Walmart that hasn't had some form of NO sign concerning handguns. Some state unlicensed carry prohibited which im pretty sure is a felony anyway.Others say Firearms prohibited.Regardless i still go there because none provide proper signage.

None of our Wal-Marts have any type of NO signs....

 

[ZX9RCAM]

IIRC that is due to the store selling alcoholic beverages, all grocery stores have the sign.

No problem carrying where alcohol is sold......just can't carry where it is consumed (or shouldn't at least).

For example, Liquor stores & such do not allow consumption on premise, so carry is no problem....unless 30.06 posted obviously.

 

[Bithabus]

39 CFR 232.1 is a regulation not a law, and it cannot conflict with 18 USC.

Even though I believe CHL carry in the Post Office is legal I don't want to be a test case.

 

[guy lemmond]

does .30-06 compliant mean at least one garand bullet hole in it?

 

[London]

My friends and I occasionally brought guns in to work on base to show each other in private or be repaired (by me). I carry in post offices. I even carry in 30.06 businesses. I carried for three years without a permit.

I mind my manners and act discreet. No problems so far.

If I were on a jury I would likely find anyone who did any of the above not guilty because I disagree with the law (Yes, you are allowed as a juror to do this). This is the best way for us as gun owners to re-balance the power taken away from us by our legislators. We CAN render these laws null and void even if we can't get them removed from the books. It's time we start taking away some "Consent of the governed."

 

[majormadmax]

It's also one of the quickest ways to become a felon and lose all of your rights to own and carry firearms!

It doesn't take but one instance of a random search while going through the gate or some incident where it is discovered you are armed to ignite a world of pain.

You may get lucky and emerge with your rights intact, but it will be very costly.

And I don't understand how ignoring laws that you disagree with could in any way render them "null and void?!?" I guess by that logic it is OK to drive at whatever speed you want, and drink while you're driving if for some reason you disagree with those laws as well.

Sorry, but your rhetoric is similar to that of separatists and other anti-government types...

 

[txinvestigator]

What you advocate makes criminals out of people. And Jury nullification exists, but on what legal precedent do establish it is "allowed", like that is a normal and acceptable for a juror to ignore evidence and testimony as well as the law?

BTW, I disagree with laws regarding stealing, so if I see property of yours I like I am going to just take it.

 

[London]

It doesn't take but one instance of a random search while going through the gate or some incident where it is discovered you are armed to ignite a world of pain.

Searches are rarely random. I do not go to places which perform them. I do not consent to them when asked.

And I don't understand how ignoring laws that you disagree with could in any way render them "null and void?!?"

That is because I never said that.

I guess by that logic it is OK to drive at whatever speed you want, and drink while you're driving if for some reason you disagree with those laws as well.

Poor choice of a straw man argument. Many speed limits are set with a mindset toward generating revenue rather than keeping people safe.

Sorry, but your rhetoric is similar to that of separatists and other anti-government types...

That's fine.

 

[London]

And Jury nullification exists, but on what legal precedent do establish it is "allowed", like that is a normal and acceptable for a juror to ignore evidence and testimony as well as the law?

That is up to the juror. We still have power to fight back against stupid laws, should we choose to do so. Al the evidence and testimony in the world don't mean a thing to me personally if the crime is Malum Prohibitum rather than Malum In Se.

BTW, I disagree with laws regarding stealing, so if I see property of yours I like I am going to just take it.

You are welcome to try!