The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

MLeake · January 14, 2012, 05:21 PM

thallub, I understand that.

However, if you actually read Section 930, it says that for general federal facilities, the rules are not intended to infringe on possession for hunting or other lawful purposes.

Licensed concealed carry for personal protection is generally found to be a lawful purpose, so, the way this section reads, even if there are signs, they are not allowed to infringe on lawful purposes, outside the buildings.

I'm curious to see if anybody can point to any actual appellate level case law on this.

Edit: I also understand this has been a major bone of contention at VA facilities, but I don't know of any cases that have actually gone forward, just threats by VA security to press charges.

Again, does anybody know of any appellate case law?

January 14, 2012, 05:21 PM	#15
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	thallub, I understand that. However, if you actually read Section 930, it says that for general federal facilities, the rules are not intended to infringe on possession for hunting or other lawful purposes. Licensed concealed carry for personal protection is generally found to be a lawful purpose, so, the way this section reads, even if there are signs, they are not allowed to infringe on lawful purposes, outside the buildings. I'm curious to see if anybody can point to any actual appellate level case law on this. Edit: I also understand this has been a major bone of contention at VA facilities, but I don't know of any cases that have actually gone forward, just threats by VA security to press charges. Again, does anybody know of any appellate case law?