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

[TexasJustice7]

"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.

[brickeyee]

"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.

[TexasJustice7]

"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.

[Spats McGee]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

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"?

[TexasJustice7]

"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.

[Spats McGee]

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.

[TexasJustice7]

"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.

[BGutzman]

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...

[TexasJustice7]

"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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

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.

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.

[Spats McGee]

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

Looks like they certainly do have the authority. Scrap my idea, then.

[TexasJustice7]

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.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by TexasJustice7

And that includes things like Pepper Spray, Scissors, knives. I guess it does not include a good heavy walking stick.

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

[TexasJustice7]

"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.

[209]

VA Connecticut has a Police Service. Our officers conduct patrols of the Newington and West Haven campus both inside the buildings and in the parking lots. In case of an emergency, dial 203-932-5711 extension 4900 (West Haven) or 860-667-6707(Newington). Report all suspicious or criminal activity, vehicle accidents, and personal property losses to the VA Police as soon as possible while on the facility grounds.

Because the VA Medical Center is federal property, all persons and bags are subject to search. In addition, no weapons, alcohol, or illegal drugs are permitted.

Info on Connecticut VA facilities. Last time I went to the Newington facility, they figured out I had a gun when I got inside. It was a tad bit confusing for a bit, but we sorted everything out. I went back out and left it in the car. No problem with that.

[Brandon.Glidden]

Look into the statute concerning firearms in your state. In florida, a new law is being passed, that as long as your car is legally parked, your firearm can be in it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Edited to add:

38 C.F.R. § 1.218
Looks like they certainly do have the authority. Scrap my idea, then.

But this regulation clearly says "shall not carry." How do we determine if "transporting" an unloaded firearm in a closed container (not on the person) falls within the applicable definition of "carry"?

[Spats McGee]

Good question. Subsection 37 makes "possession of firearms, carried either
openly or concealed, whether loaded or unloaded (except by Federal or State law enforcement officers on official business," punishable by $500. If I were the VA's lawyers, I'd certainly argue that having a gun in the car = possession.

[Brandon.Glidden]

This could be applied to vehicles as well. You can carry a firearm, rocket launcher or grenade launcher on you in your own conveyance.

[Aguila Blanca]

And if I were defending a person charged under that regulation, I would certainly argue that a firearm in a locked case in a car in the parking lot is not "carried," openly or concealed.

As I've commented before, I can't afford to become the test case.

[turbotype87]

Here in CT, The VA Facility in Newington clearly posts no firearms or weapons of any kind allowed on the premises.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And if I were defending a person charged under that regulation, I would certainly argue that a firearm in a locked case in a car in the parking lot is not "carried," openly or concealed.

Except that the penalties section includes "possession." If you have cocaine in your car, you're in possession of cocaine. If you have a gun in your car, you're in possession.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

As I've commented before, I can't afford to become the test case.

Yeah, me needah, too.

[brickeyee]

Look into the statute concerning firearms in your state. In florida, a new law is being passed, that as long as your car is legally parked, your firearm can be in it.

Except that no state statute can alter or modify federal law, codes, or regulations (unless the feds have specifically authorized it).

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TexasJustice7

(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

Spats McGee already cited that. But ...

If that's the regulation on which they are basing their denial of the RKBA, why do the signs at my VA hospital cite a different section of Federal law?