View Single Post
Old September 8, 2021, 02:32 PM   #12
Screwball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2012
Location: ME
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Maine is a special case. Which is why I have a non-resident Maine permit.

Maine's permitless carry law specifically excludes state parks unless you have a Maine carry permit. The National Park Service defaults to the law of the state in which a national park is located. Therefore, you can't carry in Acadia National Park unless you have a Maine permit. My grandparents lived in Maine, but they passed away years ago. Nonetheless, Acadia is (was, pre-COVID-19) one of my favorite places on earth, so I got the Maine permit just in case I make it back to Acadia.

I am very aware…

Still, USC doesn’t make a ME permit valid… ME law does (similarly, to a lesser extent, it does with ME Constitutional carry). Unless you find Federal case law that considers carry in either situation as “other lawful purpose” you really can’t link state carry and 18 USC §930 as being good to go.

Really, that would be the way to go about getting more coverage of carry permits/Constitutional carry… if gun groups wanted to push towards that. Not as big of a deal as the “sporting clause,” but definitely can do a lot of major changes there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
But the law doesn't prohibit carry or possession in "buildings," it prohibits carry and possession in "federal facilities" -- and the definition of what constitutes a "federal facility" for the purposes of that law is right in the law.
Is this a pot/kettle situation?

One point that should also be considered… GSA does lease property to Federal agencies. But Federal agencies can also be leased property from other sources.

Easy example… the World Trade Center. Federal agencies leased area from the Port Authority of NY/NJ. So, with said definition… it would not mean 18 USC §930 would cover the entire building… just the area that the Federal government leased.

Yes, you can bring in “what about” for a half a dozen scenarios… especially being it was within NYC. We also have buildings on our property that are leased by other agencies… FDA, for example. One building even has a single room leased by them. But that gives a better idea of the reason it was written like that. It’s not to done to allow a sliver of ground for carrying rights. Government don’t do stuff like that.

If you want to try to use it in a way to give better gun rights to civilians… I won’t say it won’t work (very much doubt it), but again, I’d try to find some case law that supports it before I’d go to that stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
What law are they breaking? 18 USC 930 prohibits carry or possession IN "federal facility." The definition of a federal facility doesn't say "property," it says "a building or part thereof." Unless you have drive-though indoor inspection lanes, there's no way 18 USC 930 applies to the inspection lanes.

Don't be confused by the Postal Service and the Veterans Administration. There are separate regulations addressing possession of firearms on USPS and VA property, and those regulations do say "property."
18 USC §930… per your own quoted definition.

Unsure if you’ve been to a land border POE, but think of toll booths, which officers are present… conducting their inspection. If something requires them to come inside, they are escorted to a secondary area, and brought inside. Per your quoted definition… it is a part of the building (plans for the building include these structures, to include covering from the elements that is also a second floor/indoor route across the lanes), and Federal officers are present to conduct their duties.

You can disagree as much as you want, but until there is a court decision stating a part of our building isn’t a part of our building or we don’t work at our building… I’m going off the pretty clear definition, which sides with that.

I’ll say I have zero knowledge about VA locations. Not a veteran, and they are upwards of three hours away from me, so I really won’t speak to whatever their regulations are/how messed up they are.

USPS had a few instances where it was ruled that the parking lot is not covered, even if it was included in their regulations. Came down to if there was delivery service offered (meaning to get mail, you had to go inside their building), or if it was feasible to allow mail services to be offered without making it too difficult to store the firearm prior. Again, issues like that are better used for court cases than “what is part of the building.” When you show an actual problem with the law… you have a better chance than trying to come up with a problem. Because the latter turns into, “we, as representatives/senators, must fix this possible issue to protect our workforce.” Results in more legislation that actually hammers down on the gray area that people are bringing up.

The best Trump legacy is the Supreme Court and Federal judges that were appointed. If appointments are kept low prior to 2024, you have a chance of positive changes with firearms regulation in the next administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
What would you do if a felon came through with an 80% receiver? It's not a firearm.

Or were you referring not to 80% receivers, but to firearms that had been completed from 80% receivers?

Said 80% firearm… so firearms made from 80% receivers. Didn’t think it was that confusing, but apologies. Two P80s, if I remember correctly.

Officers were talking to him about it, being we liked the idea, except for having to tweak things to get it to function 100%. I want a full size slide and compact grip, but instead of hunting down one of those P80s that seem to be rare… I’m picking up a LWD frame that is setup like that. More plug and play… and if there is an issue, LWD can fix it.
Screwball is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02430 seconds with 8 queries