VA hospital?

[chris in va]

I had an appointment recently at the Louisville VA hospital and noticed all the usual road 'no guns' signs are turned around backward. The building door signs are still there.

Something change I'm not aware of?

[Aguila Blanca]

You mean the signs at the road/driveway entrances that say "No guns allowed on the property" and then cite a section of federal regulations that applies only to buildings? THOSE signs?

I'll have to check out my local VA hospital.

[rwilson452]

Please do. I don't go to the VA that often. it would be nice to know.

[chris in va]

Yup...those signs. Ours quotes a KRS as well.

[Aguila Blanca]

"KRS" meaning a Kentucky State Regulation?

How does a state regulation apply on a federal reservation? Heck, VA hospitals even have their own police forces. The signs at my VA hospital show the standard handgun in a red circle with a slah, then say something about no weapons allowed on the "property" (doesn't say "facility." At the bottom, in small type, they cite 18 USC 930. That's the one that prohibits firearms and dangerous weapons in federal facilities, and in which "facility" is defined as a building where federal employees are regularly present for work.

I made the mistake of trying to ask one of the officers how a parking lot had suddenly become a building. Unsurprisingly, he didn't address the question, he just copped an attitude.

[NJgunowner]

Didn't the USPS lose a case a few years back about banning guns from their parking lot? It was agreed they could ban them from the building but not the lot or some such. Maybe it has something to do with that???

[kilimanjaro]

You might call the VA hospital security staff and inquire.

[44 AMP]

IF the signs don't apply, why turn them around rather than take them down??

It COULD be a trap!!!

Some dastardly scheme to lure you into breaking the law!!!!

or not....

[BlueTrain]

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that state law still applies on federal property. For instance, it is now legal to carry a firearm in most national parks but state law relevant to carrying a firearm still applies. And by the way, hunting regulations also apply.

[Aguila Blanca]

I drove through the local VA hospital grounds on my way home from work today. The signs are still up (and facing traffic) at both entrances to the property. The signs say:

NOTICE
NO FIREARMS OR
WEAPONS ALLOWED
ON THIS PROPERTY
18 USC 930

The fact that 18 USC 930 doesn't convey any authority to prohibit firearms outside of the buildings does not seem to bother the VA Healthcare System at all. As far as their officers are concerned, they have the badges and they have the guns, so they're right and never mind that legal stuff.

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

You might call the VA hospital security staff and inquire.

I asked in person. I already posted what the response was.

[44 AMP]

I made the mistake of trying to ask one of the officers how a parking lot had suddenly become a building. Unsurprisingly, he didn't address the question, he just copped an attitude.

Ask a trooper or an NCO to explain something officers argue about in court, and you're lucky if attitude is all you get.

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.

[BlueTrain]

Given the way laws are written, sometimes fairly vaguely at best, it is asking a lot of a law enforcement individual to enforce them. And when you hear someone say, "why don't they just enforce the laws we have," you don't really want that to happen.

[dajowi]

"I made the mistake of trying to ask one of the officers..."

I've experienced it myself and have heard the same thing from a number of sources - don't expect law enforcement or security officers to be knowledgeable in regards to state and federal laws.

[BlueTrain]

That's why they aren't referred to as "lawyers."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Didn't the USPS lose a case a few years back about banning guns from their parking lot? It was agreed they could ban them from the building but not the lot or some such. Maybe it has something to do with that???

Yes, they did. But it was at the district court level, not the appellate level, so it has very limited applicability.

[psyfly]

Long winded response:

A while back (more than a year, less than five, if memory serves) I had a lengthy and friendly discussion with a DoD attorney about the firearms regulations and general federal law, military facilities/properties, VAs, and even post offices.

Following is my recollection (be advised that I’ve told my wife that my memory has become unreliable enough that I’m planning soon to stop using it for anything important):

Military properties: 18 USC 930 applies in general and, indeed, applies to buildings in which government business is being transacted. Carry on military property otherwise is under the strict purview and absolute control of the facility commander and has the force of law within the confines of the facility.

VA: She told me they have their own rules, including no firearms in the parking lot, regardless of state law to the contrary, and that these “rules” have actually occasionally been tried (don’t have any cites) and the courts have upheld the VA’s right to do what they want in this regard. In short: No firearms allowed anywhere on VA property including in your vehicle in the parking lot.

Post Office: 18 USC 930 applies and the Post Office also has the right to prohibit firearms in their parking lot (as long as it is their parking lot). They do not have control over guns in shared common parking lots where the Post Office is, for example, one of several tenants of a property.

To the best of my recollection, we did not discuss Federal Court buildings, but I believe that it’s simply application of 18 USC 930 and parking lots don’t enter into the matter.

Please understand that this was one DoD attorney who, despite the fact that she assured me she knew what she was talking about; 1) Maybe she didn’t and 2) It is possibly now outdated information.

Things can change and YMMV.

A personal account:

Several years ago (coming on ten now) I was employed by the DoD on a military base. I routinely carried firearms in my vehicle which fact was known to the powers that existed on the base, up to and including the Wing Commander and there was not a problem.

A couple of Wing Commanders later, I had occasion to revisit the issue with the NCOIC of the Security Group who informed me that he would obtain a “permit” for me from the Wing Commander. Within the hour he called me back and informed me that it was not going to happen and that, henceforth, no such latitude would be allowed for anyone.

I am currently working inside a VA facility (as a DoD contractor: I do not work for the VA) and I am convinced the VA police will briskly, if not vigorously, enforce the no firearms policy anywhere on their premises.

Best wishes for a happy Thanksgiving.

[JimPage]

Does anyone else find the dichotomy of a right acknowledge in the Constitution creating this country being denied on the premises of the very government of the country the Constitution created hypocritical?

[Aguila Blanca]

When I first started going to the VA hospital, the owner of the range where I shoot knew a captain on the VA police force. He gave me the contact, I talked to the captain, and he informed me that having a gun in my car in the parking lot was not a problem, they were only concerned with weapons inside the buildings. There were no "No guns" signs at the property entrances.

The "No guns allowed" signs were installed very soon after Obama was elected. It was after Obama was elected (and in response to the new signs) that I spoke to one of the officers (the captain, my former contact, had retired). He wasn't even remotely interested in the fact that the authority cited on their signs doesn't give them any authority to prohibit weapons outside of the buildings. Somebody higher up in the food chain told the officers "No guns," so the officers now enforce "No guns."

It seems guns are closely related to thinking. As far as the VA police force is concerned, the policy is "No guns allowed, no thinking allowed."

[Dreaming100Straight]

Is there a difference between the VA, as the owner of property including the parking lot, forbidding firearms and one being prosecuted under 18 USC 930? I think that could be done and perhaps you could be prosecuted under laws, such as trespass laws of a particular state, but it does sound as though the VA is enforcing 18 USC 930 in the parking lot and that such is clearly not authorized.

Looking deeper, the prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply to the carrying of firearms in a federal facility for :hunting or other lawful purposes." See subsection (d)(3). The last I looked, possession of firearm for self defense was a lawful purpose. As for hunting, I often see a buck being taken in the VA hospital emergency room.

The Post Office case is U.S. vs Dorosan and it is not a trial court but Circuit Court opinion, unpublished as is it is I see no valueis it as precedence. Also, the case is not based on 18 USC 930, but a CFR forbidding bringing a handgun onto property of the postal service.

[44 AMP]

Each situation seems to have its own rules, but that may just be my confusion.

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.

I do not now recall if the lot was posted with no gun signs, or not. sorry.

Bottom line, if you know its their policy signs nor not, don't take your gun where you aren't welcome.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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.

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.

[Aikibiker]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Aikibiker

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.

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.

[dajowi]

"You might call the VA hospital security staff and inquire."

I'm sure they'll have the correct answers.

[BlueTrain]

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.