Concealed Carry in National Parks

[ChasHam]

Made an unplanned and spontaneous visit to a local National Park yesterday and as I pulled into the parking lot, I wondered about the concealed pistol i am licensed to carry and was at the time.

As luck would have it, two rangers were standing nearby and after securing the gun in the car, I asked them about carrying in the park. They said standing state and local firearms laws applied outdoors but carrying inside any of the buildings was prohibited.

[Pahoo]

They said standing state and local firearms laws applied outdoors but carrying inside any of the buildings was prohibited.

A few years back, while visiting a state park in Colorado, I was tempted to ask this question and it was volunteered by one of the rangers. He pretty much said the same but did not mention anything about buildings. He did say to have "some" protection if we were planning on going hiking; then gave us a wink and a nod.

In a previous life, I told some members of my crew that if they asked a question about company policy or taking it up, the change of command, to first do their homework as they would probably not like the answer. ...

Be Safe !!!

[FlyFish]

They said standing state and local firearms laws applied outdoors but carrying inside any of the buildings was prohibited.

Correct. Here in NH we have constitutional carry and the White Mountain National Forest (not National Park, but the "no carry in Federal buildings rule" still applies). There are a large number of WHNF outhouse-type toilets and my understanding is that taking your CCW into one is technically a violation of Federal law, as each is a Federal "building."

[44 AMP]

There's a lot to be said for the "don't ask, don't tell" idea, that has nothing to do with anything sexual.

And do check your company's "Employee Handbook" or what ever they call it, if they have one. Many contain badly written or even open ended rules you are expected to follow and can be used as VALID grounds for dismissal if you don't.

And I say "valid" because no matter how stupid seeming or even egregious, they are valid, because YOU AGREE to follow them. Usually without any idea of what they are, in detail.

One company I once worked for was ...decent enough, overall, but mostly because they rarely enforced the more onerous of their rules. But they were there, if needed....

Some companies seem to think that since the hired you, and pay you, they own you... 24/7. Including outside of work hours and off company property. Because, as they looked at it, being an employee meant that you "represented" the company, and to them, that meant at all times.

Got into a "discussion" with Mgt one time, because their rule book said "employees are forbidden to posess firearms". It did not say "at work" or "on company property" of have any other limiters.

Of course I was verbally told what it "meant", to which my counter was, "I get that, but that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS! Ask your lawyers about the difference..."

The next edition of the rule book modified the statement to during work hrs on company property, etc.

Another time it was over intellectual property rights. The company claimed authority over anything I might write or publish. Even if I used no company materials, company information, or company time.

Same company took a dim view of any kind of political activism (unless it was in their favor) outside of the workplace where it was expressly forbidden. And don't get me started on how they felt if your wife's cousin's idiot brother was a three time loser petty thief and dope dealer...(who was NOT welcome in my house or on my property, BTW)...

All unoffical...of course,,, BUT....

Back to parks, sorry...
Quite a while back one administration decided no carry in National Parks, at all. That was the rule for a long time. We won a "victory" with a much later administration changing that rule. As I understand it, carry in National Parks is now allowed "in accordance to all applicable Federal and State regulations".

So, if the Rangers (or park staff) say "no carry in buildings, otherwise ok" then do that. Its Federal property, and the rules don't require an Act of Congress to change them. Executive authority is enough.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FlyFish

Correct. Here in NH we have constitutional carry and the White Mountain National Forest (not National Park, but the "no carry in Federal buildings rule" still applies). There are a large number of WHNF outhouse-type toilets and my understanding is that taking your CCW into one is technically a violation of Federal law, as each is a Federal "building."

Actually, I don't think the outhouses would be a violation.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

The law governing carry in federal buildings is 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930 ). It says:

(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.

However, as we should all know by now, the devil is in the details. 18 USC 930 also includes definitions:

(g) As used in this section:
(1) 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.

It's arguable that the park headquarters or visitor center would be a place where "federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their duties." An outhouse or a toilet building, where someone checks it and mops it down once or twice a day, probably isn't considered a place where federal employees are "regularly" present.

I don't know if this has ever been tested in court. I also don't know how (or if) it applies to concession buildings such as the gift and souvenir shops that most national parks have, but which are not operated by the National Park Service.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

It's arguable that the park headquarters or visitor center would be a place where "federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their duties." An outhouse or a toilet building, where someone checks it and mops it down once or twice a day, probably isn't considered a place where federal employees are "regularly" present.

I don't know if this has ever been tested in court. I also don't know how (or if) it applies to concession buildings such as the gift and souvenir shops that most national parks have, but which are not operated by the National Park Service.

Quoted because of a point further down… paragraph 3. Some of this rambling has little to do with conceal carry at National Parks, but putting how we apply this law locally. Not saying it transfers to buildings at National Parks directly, but might make it easier for some to understand. Or it might make more questions.

Signs are usually posted visibly at entrances… at least our land border Port of Entry (CBP) it is. Visitor center at Acadia National Park is the same, as I was carrying there in July. Main public entrances have a sign stating no firearms unless X. Pretty much, on duty law enforcement, Federal L/E (on/off duty), and persons present incidental to hunting are exempt within 18 US Code §930. ME is Constitutional carry, but neither permit or permit-less carry trump that USC. The hunting exemption does also state “other lawful purposes,” but I’ve never seen Federal case law that establishes state permits (or Constitutional carry) as such. If someone does have an example, I’m interested in reviewing it.

For people that clean restrooms and alike, they usually are contractors… so take that as you will with that aspect of the definitions. We have one outport that has a separate part of the same building, which has a public room with a water fountain… and then two bathrooms off that. We use those bathrooms, but we also have bathrooms upstairs (port reeks of mildew, so we try to get outside as much as possible). That first room with the water fountain does have that same “no firearms” signage. Unsure if it is due to being under the same roof, or if people got sign happy. Me, personally… if someone is fishing on the bridge and carrying, I couldn’t care less if they need to take a leak/drop anchor. But per USC, that would be breaking the law.

Federal property is a big issue for different situations, not just firearm possession. If they say buildings, it likely means a structure that is on the specific property… which isn’t privately owned. Either a specific agency or GSA (sort of like the real estate managers for the Federal government). Our agency has ports that CBP owns, and ports that we lease from GSA… who owns it. In all intents/purposes, both categories are Federal buildings.

We have the same “no firearm” signs in the primary lanes, as we consider the inspection area part of Federal property. Depending on the officer, it will depend on how someone carrying is treated. I’m more of the stance that if they are declaring it, less of a threat than the guy who isn’t saying anything. Usually, I’ll ask them to keep their hands on the wheel/dash, verbally describe where it is, and then move from there (last one off the top of my head, I removed a P938 from a traveler’s holster, cleared, and then continued my inspection). Now, by legal letter of the law, someone carrying is breaking the law… that being said, you aren’t going to be jammed up for missing a turn, unless it was illegal prior to that (felon with a firearm, for example). Similar to possession of weed, as it is legal in Canada and ME… but when you are being inspected by a Federal officer after contact with the international border, it is a Schedule I narcotic that will be seized (cannot wait until it is legalized due to that BS).

Our port policy states we must confirm the firearm is not stolen, and that the person in possession of it is A) US citizen or alien that can be in possession of it, and B) not a felon. Most of the time, it is quick and uneventful. Once in awhile, we get serial number matches on older guns that are different types/calibers. I’ve seen one that was an exact match, because it was stolen, was found and given back to the owner… but the agency did not pull the NCIC record (guy left with his gun after a few calls between us, them, and MSP). Afterwords, we tend to place the firearm/ammo in their vehicle so they do not have readable access to it, and then say once you leave the property, you may grab it and reload.

Interesting aside that really has zero to do with the topic… we have had 80% firearms come thru. Can’t check a firearm without a serial number… but can check if the person is a felon. All of the ones that came thru, they went down the road with the person after checks were done.

The USPS topic is the one that I know has a lot of confusion, so why not bring it up with talk about Federal buildings. They are covered by the same USC as above, but they also have a separate set of regulations under 39 CFR § 232.1. “Official purposes” is the big hangup for most, and why people see to think even L/E can’t carry there. Obviously, shipping a firearm is “official purpose” if you are following USPS’ rules (dealers shipping handguns, anyone else shipping long guns). I feel this aspect expands the law more than it restricts, but ask people that work for USPS… and they like to tell L/E how you can’t bring guns inside. I have a friend, who’s wife told me I can’t go inside a post office if I’m shipping something for work… in uniform. First package of evidence that went off to be destroyed, sent her a selfie just to start with her.

Per 18 US Code §930, Federal officials may carry in Federal buildings, so my logic (not a lawyer, and no Holiday Inn Express in the past two years) is that constitutes “official purpose.” If I have my firearm, and stop a crime in a post office while off duty… I’ll cross that bridge when it comes up.

Now, I’m probably more conservative than a lot of L/E… but I hate all this crap. I personally rather have more “good guys” to back me up when some POS decides he wants to hold up the Post Office for Christmas cards. But jerks in power are going to do the same crap that has been done since the 1930s. Means more confusion on a constitutional right, and less safety for law abiding citizens.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Screwball

Signs are usually posted visibly at entrances… at least our land border Port of Entry (CBP) it is. Visitor center at Acadia National Park is the same, as I was carrying there in July. Main public entrances have a sign stating no firearms unless X. Pretty much, on duty law enforcement, Federal L/E (on/off duty), and persons present incidental to hunting are exempt within 18 US Code §930. ME is Constitutional carry, but neither permit or permit-less carry trump that USC. The hunting exemption does also state “other lawful purposes,” but I’ve never seen Federal case law that establishes state permits (or Constitutional carry) as such. If someone does have an example, I’m interested in reviewing it.

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.

Originally Posted by Screwball

Federal property is a big issue for different situations, not just firearm possession. If they say buildings, it likely means a structure that is on the specific property… which isn’t privately owned. Either a specific agency or GSA (sort of like the real estate managers for the Federal government). Our agency has ports that CBP owns, and ports that we lease from GSA… who owns it. In all intents/purposes, both categories are Federal buildings.

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.

(g) As used in this section:
(1) 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.

Originally Posted by Screwball

We have the same “no firearm” signs in the primary lanes, as we consider the inspection area part of Federal property. Depending on the officer, it will depend on how someone carrying is treated. I’m more of the stance that if they are declaring it, less of a threat than the guy who isn’t saying anything. Usually, I’ll ask them to keep their hands on the wheel/dash, verbally describe where it is, and then move from there (last one off the top of my head, I removed a P938 from a traveler’s holster, cleared, and then continued my inspection). Now, by legal letter of the law, someone carrying is breaking the law…

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."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Screwball

Interesting aside that really has zero to do with the topic… we have had 80% firearms come thru. Can’t check a firearm without a serial number… but can check if the person is a felon. All of the ones that came thru, they went down the road with the person after checks were done.

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?

[44 AMP]

While a certain specific law's definition of facility may only say building or structure, I'm sure there are other laws that cover other things. One of those is the parking lot of a leased facility.

The one I know of, personally was a DOE leased facility, used for classroom training. Building has signs, the parking lot did not.

There was a road rage incident where a guy followed another into the parking lot and threatened him with a gun. Cops got him before anyone was hurt. Charged not only with the assault, but also for having the gun in the parking lot where it was prohibited. Not sure which section of law allowed for that, but clearly one did. Signs went up at the parking lot entrances soon after..

[jmr40]

The law was changed as one of the last things Bush Jr. did as he left the Whitehouse. You have been able to carry in National Parks since as long as you can legally carry in the state the park is located.

There are a few places that do not recognize my GA carry permit, but otherwise I've been carrying ever since. I do have to be careful about not going into buildings. One of our favorite hikes in the SMNP is to the Mount LeConte Lodge.

It is an 11 mile very scenic hike with a great view from the summit. But once there my wife and I can't enter any part of the lodge at the same time. I always place the guns in one of our packs and one of us stays outside with the packs while we go in one at a time.

[Aguila Blanca]

Signs are signs. People often post signs without having any idea whether or not the signs are legal.

Example: The Veterans Administration. There are two driveways onto the campus of the VA hospital I go to, one off a main street and one off a side street. Sometime early in Obama's first administration, new signs were posted at both entrances to the campus, with the big red circle & slash through a gun and verbiage warning that dangerous weapons are prohibited on the property. The fine print at the bottom cites 18 USC 930.

The problem is that 18 USC 930 says nothing about guns on the property. It prohibits firearms in "federal facilities," and it then defines a federal facility as "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 it happens, there is a federal regulation pertaining only to VA properties, and that does prohibit firearms anywhere on the property. But whoever posted the signs at my VA facility obviously didn't understand the law. I'm not going to volunteer to be a test case, but I think it would be interesting if someone were busted for having a firearm in his car. His defense would be that he knew 18 USC 930 does NOT apply to any part of the campus other than the buildings, so he assumed that he was okay. Of course, in fact he would have broken the law, but if the VA cites an incorrect law and you know what that law says -- shouldn't you be allowed to rely on that? VERY few people know about 38 CFR § 1.218 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/1.218 )

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Screwball

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.

You're missing the point.

I am not claiming that anything in Maine law allows anyone to carry IN a federal building. I'm saying that 18 USC 930 prohibits firearms "IN" federal facilities (not "near," and not "on the property adjacent to"), and the law very clearly defines a federal facility as "a building or portion thereof."

Words have meaning, especially when the words constitute a law. If your inspection lanes are not indoor -- 18 USC 930 does not apply. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a Maine permit, or with Maine's version of permitless carry.

Originally Posted by Screwball

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.

Correct. The definition of "federal facility" in the law is:

... 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.

So, using the World Trade Center as an example, 18 USC 930 would only apply to those offices rented by the federal government. Of course, the World Trade Center is a poor example because it was in New York City, where virtually nobody can [legally] carry anyway.

So your answer to my question of what law would someone be breaking if they carry a firearm at one of your inspection lanes is:

18 USC §930… per your own quoted definition.

How? It's not my definition -- the definition is in the law. The law says it is illegal to possess a firearm "in" a federal facility, and it then defines a federal facility as "a building or portion thereof ...". So, again, unless your inspection lanes are inside a building -- how do you conclude that 18 USC 930 applies in any way?

If the person has to go inside the building, that's a different situation. But that's the exception, not the rule. I have been through border crossings in Maine, New York, and New Hampshire on more than one occasion -- never had to exit my vehicle. I was never "in" a federal facility as defined in 18 USC 930.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

You're missing the point.

Bud, in all fairness… I don’t even know what point you want to make.

You quoted something specifically discussing how ME carry (permit or permit-less) has no effect on USC… then after I reply, argue that it has no effect on it. [insert Captain Obvious meme] I specifically made reference to exemptions to that specific statute for that very reason, to show how it would need to be interpreted for it to work IN a Federal building (and as it also states, if it is incidental to hunting… which is part of the same exception in that USC).

Sorry, but I deal with people that “know” the law everyday. People who tell me I can’t ask X, or I have no justification questioning how much money they are traveling with (actually, I do). Best are Canadian truck drivers telling me it is their right to transport goods in the US… nope, their privilege as a visitor to this country. If you want to argue what a part of a building is, I’m going to say go talk with an engineer about it. Because I, and more importantly my superiors, view it as part of the facility… and my duties are carried out at that location. Meets the definition in the eyes of my agency. I’ll probably look to see if there are any other regulations/codes on those signs, but I know 18 USC §930 is definitely on them. Most of the CFR we use are directly related to Customs (19) and Immigration (8), which I don’t believe have regulations related to that… but I can’t say for sure, off the top of my head.

Whatever you want to tell yourself, it is fine with me. We live in America, and are allowed to have disagreeing opinions. If I’m conducting an inspection, and you declare a firearm on your person, I’ll handle it the exact same way that I have. There are officers that will pull you out of the car, cuff you, and then deal with it… and with our UOF policy, it is actually allowed (officer safety… not going to win favor with a lot of people, but all I will say is that it is officer discretion, minus NCIC matches; we have to cuff those). As long as you aren’t a felon (I’m figuring you aren’t, not just being a part of this forum but that 95% of travelers encountered are not… however that’s what NCIC is for) and the gun isn’t stolen (also NCIC)… you’ll have it back after our inspection process is complete and can reload/reholster once you leave.

If you have a problem with it, I can give you a comment card afterwards and you can bring it up to OPR at your convenience. We also have a complaint page on our website, if you lose said card. Name is on our uniform/jacket/vest.

Keep in mind, if you are sitting in front of me… you entered Canada with a firearm. If you got to Canadian Customs, they asked… removed your gun, unloaded it, put it inside a yellow gun locker, and we will open it for you when you get to us (same checks will be carried out; it isn’t that exciting, because it happens very frequently… like I’ve ran lockers back to Canada because they sent them all over within two hours).

If you didn’t get to Canadian Customs… you went about 75 yards into Canada to make that U-turn. Mention that if you want to say we also violated your 4th Amendment rights… being you had nexus with the international boundary. Border search authority… which is also our grounds for confirming the firearm isn’t stolen and you aren’t a felon.

And for every person with a firearm that I interacted with (well over 100 by now), I do explain that process to them. Why we do it, and that I appreciate their patience during our inspection process. I’ve yet to have one person complain or even say anything remotely negative about it.

I was going to quote your statement about it being the definition of the law and not your definition. As you said, words have meanings… like when I state “per your own quoted definition,” I specifically mean the definition that you quoted. But… I lost ambition with copy and paste on my iPhone.

All that being said, I truly mean zero disrespect directed towards you, Aguila Blanca. I get that political/interpretation of law is a hot debate… hell, if you haven’t seen the hour long saga on YouTube that one of our heads down in Portland had with a First Amendment auditor… there is a lot of buttons being pushed in our occupation (internally in the aftermarket of that). If I came off hostile towards you, I’ll apologize for that. Was not my intention.

That being said, I also don’t think there will be much positive coming out of this thread if we both continue the back and forth. If you do find any case law specific to ports of entry and “Federal facilities,” I’d be interested to take a look. I don’t say that government has never made a mistake… so if there is an opinion that differs from our policy, I’d definitely be open to give it a read. But usually if there is, the agency disseminates it somewhat quickly for obvious reasons.