Firearms on military property

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Buck's MP Source

"Your permit is good for Georgia and Georgia stops at the post boundary.

GREAT answer (I love it.)
(Major Anderson used a variation on that answer 150+ years ago, ...and look what ignoring it cost.)

[MLeake]

Only thing is, that is not how 930 reads. Check the link in my earlier post.

Since the Georgia magistrate has not sent anybody to jail, I wonder if there have been any appeals. Without an appeal, there really is no case law, there is only what they have been doing so far.

930 specifically limits the allowable restrictions on federal properties.

[Don H]

Thanks, Uncle Buck, for posting the response from your source.

Unless there's sufficient case law or appellate precedent expanding the definition of a "federal facility", I just don't see how 18 USC 930 would apply outside of structures, given the definition of "federal facility" embedded in the statute.

A Google search (which I realize is very limited) only turned up convictions under 18 USC 930 of people who were inside federal buildings; none that I could find were for merely being on federal property with a firearm.

As a point of interest, the firearm prohibition in National Parks was accomplished with a CFR regulation (36 CFR 2.4). I'd think that if 18 USC 930 applied to mere federal property, rather than buildings), it, in and of itself, would have been sufficient to regulate firearms on NP lands.

Any attorneys on this board care to join in and speculate on this subject?

[brickeyee]

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.

Except your STATE issued concealed carry permit is not valid on federal property, and there is no real federal 'concealed carry permit.'

[MLeake]

Read the section, Brickeyee; incidental to hunting or other lawful purposes allows a lot of latitude; also, some federal reservations specifically do recognize state CCW; and Uncle Buck's source referred to weapons in vehicles, not necessarily concealed.

Still waiting for appellate cases involving 930, as opposed to assimilated state laws. Anybody?

[manta49]

Why would you want to carry a firearm on a military base. Not sure about America but if you where seen here on a military base with a firearm you wouldn't have to worry about it being illegal, you would probably be shot.

[Don H]

I didn't say that I wanted to carry on a military base but I am exploring the legalities of doing so. Additionally, since in almost all states in the U.S. it is legal to possess and/or carry a firearm, a number of people who do so have the problem of what to do with their firearm(s) if they desire to attend an event on a base or have business on a base.

Also, military bases here have been the scene of violence resulting in deaths a number of times. Some people prefer to take responsibility for their own safety (something that people in some other countries may not be allowed to do) since law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals.

As I stated a number of times in earlier threads, I'm merely trying to pin down the specific federal code that prohibits a civilian from possessing a firearm on military property; an academic quest, so to speak.

[MLeake]

manta49, a lot of us like to bring a firearm when we go on a road trip. Sometimes, for some of us, those road trips might entail a visit to a base.

Or, for that matter, a visit to a Veteran's Administration office.

You get that a lot, with military retirees who travel.

We aren't talking about running around with a weapon in hand, we are talking about a gun locked in a vehicle, to be carried concealed on other parts of the trip.

For those of us who don't live all that close to a VA center, and especially for those of us who have to travel through some of the nastier parts of town to get to a VA center, this can also be a problem for dedicated trips to the VA.

[manta49]

Here if you are carrying a firearm for personal protection then you hand it in at security. You then lift it again when you leave the base. I would assume that bases in America have similar rules for bringing firearms into the base so you just follow the base rules. It could be different in America here i don't think there is a specific law. The MOD decides what the rules are on MOD bases.

[brickeyee]

Read the section, Brickeyee; incidental to hunting or other lawful purposes allows a lot of latitude

You can try and pretend you are under the "lawful purpose" cloud, but that is not what it has ever been interpreted as.

It covers government agents carrying out their jobs, like the Postal Inspectors on Post Office property, or bringin a a long gun into a post office to mail it.

It is not going to extend to any lawful purpose you want it to.

Legislative intent will be used to determine what "lawful activity" the law was intended to cover, not whatever you try to dream up.

Congress's intent sets the boundaries.

The Congressional record is there for you to look at, along with the courts.

[MLeake]

brickeyee, you didn't read the link, did you?

It says, under exceptions,

incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.

So your LE types are going hunting in their official capacity, are they?

It would be ok to have the weapon if you were going hunting... or to ship it.

Since you are claiming there's a long judicial record on this, please cite some applicable appellate cases. Otherwise, you can apologize for the "whatever I dream up" comment.

[brickeyee]

brickeyee, you didn't read the link, did you?

Yes I did.

Self defense is not a 'lawful' purpose allowing you to carry.

YOU do not get to define 'lawful' purpose.

Congressional intent defines 'lawful purpose.'

When you find something in the Congressional record let us know.

Until then you simply do not get to define the term as you want.

And law enforcement is allowed on Federal property by agreements between the law enforcement agency and the government function that controls the property.

I have personally seen state police turned away from some Federal installations.
They were not allowed past the gate and the barricades were raised as soon as they gave any static to the FPS guards.

The law does NOT mean whomever is controlling the Federal property cannot let in anyone they want for any purpose the two parties agree on (it becomes a 'lawful purpose' at that point), just that without permission they cannot enter.

The base commander can allow hunting if they wish, but they do not have to allow hunting.
They can also have whatever rules they want.
Like non handguns, fixed locations, etc.

[MLeake]

The onus is on the government to define lawful or unlawful purposes, Brickeyee, and since they did not, the burden should be on the government to prove any purpose does not meet the standard.

And you still have not provided any appellate links...

[ltc444]

A Military installation is a different animal than other facilities. I will now put my Green Hat on and give you a dose of reality.

I am the Commander, you are on my base and you will bloody well do what I say. If you violate my rules I will classify you as a terrorist and turn you over to the FBI and the Feds for prosecution. It will take weeks if not months to sort out your situation.

If I am going to a base, I check the Post Regulations and abide by them.

If you chose to make a test case in this day and age be ready for a long stay in a Military Lockup. The brig is not a plesant place to stay. Frankly I would rather be in Sheriff Joe's tent city than a Military Brig.

[MLeake]

ltc444, I think I already indicated I don't recommend trying this out. (Besides which, as a retiree, I suspect I'm subject to UCMJ when I do go to a base, and think that would be the chink in my armor for any such test case.)

My point is, though, the way the code is written, it doesn't actually provide for that power.

I most definitely would not like to be the test case. That doesn't mean I don't think the military is overstepping the authority the federal code actually specifies.

I also note that nobody has been able to provide on-point appellate records... They may exist, but nobody has pointed them out if they do.

[Slamfire]

The Federal Government has a big stick.

An old bud told me of an Arsenal near where he lived as a kid during WWII.

The locals and the Arsenal workers had a lot of friction, the Arsenal having grown so big and so fast. The local cops used to harass the Arsenal workers.

One day, an Arsenal worker was being chased by a local Cop. Maybe speeding, who knows. The Arsenal worker has the proper decals and tags and goes by the Post Security. The Cop has no justification or even authority to go on the base but he keeps on the pursuit.

Bud told me the Soldier on guard at the gate, he lifted his thompson machine gun off the hook and unloaded it in the rear window of the Cop Car as it went by.

That ended the chase, and there was no question about the limits of local authority and whose law was enforced on the Arsenal.

[ltc444]

Mleake my point is that Military rules are different than civilian rules. Their authroity is not drawn from the same USC sections that normal federal enclaves operate under. I hope by my post that someone will think long and hard before they violate a post regulation and get themselves burried in a Federal Prision for an extended period of time.

In some cases the regulations they operate under are not published. If you enter a Military enclave you must obey the singage.

There is a small facility in Maryland which, should you fail to follow the posted (signs), will result in you being shot. It is marked simply, there is not a lot visible high tech survelliance. It is a simple gate and guardhouse. The only visible difference is that the gate is manned by sailors not federal security guards.

Even on an open "Post" there places were the rules change. A good example is Andrews Joint Operating Base. Most of that base is open to the public and civilian rules apply. There are also places, the demarcation lines are not distinct, which are governed strictly by Military Rules. These rules are enforced by humorless Service Members with loaded weapons and authority to shoot if compliance is not immediate and correct.

My hope by posting in the manner I have is to convey seriousness of this issue and the cost which could be incurred by someone wanting to exercise their rights inappropriately.

[Don H]

ltc444,

Could you please post/cite the specific controlling authority that allows a civilian to be prosecuted for the violation of a post regulation such as carrying an unauthorized firearm on base?

Their authroity is not drawn from the same USC sections that normal federal enclaves operate under.

In which 'military' USC sections is this authority to regulate civilian possession of unauthorized located?

[ltc444]

No but you can read on the signs. I no longer have a JAG Officer to provide that for me.

I note that you are near Dugway. Take a ride out there and you will find the citations.

[Uncle Buck]

I am the Commander, you are on my base and you will bloody well do what I say. If you violate my rules I will classify you as a terrorist and turn you over to the FBI and the Feds for prosecution. It will take weeks if not months to sort out your situation

Sorry Commander, you can only enforce rules over which you are authorized to enforce. You have no authority to make up your own rules. If you charge me with violating those rules, you need to be able to point to the law/regulation in which they are encoded and justify my incarceration. Thats the rules.

In some cases the regulations they operate under are not published. If you enter a Military enclave you must obey the singage.

All rules, regulations and laws are published, someplace. There are no signs warning military members to not walk around with their hands in their pockets, but it is a regulation.

There is a small facility in Maryland which, should you fail to follow the posted (signs), will result in you being shot.

You will not be shot before a guard talks, or attempts to talk, to you. My mother got lost on Loring AF Base. She ended up at the Priority A, Alert Bomber Facility and walked up to the fence, setting alarms off as she approached. She actually touched the fence, setting off even more alarms. There was a sign about ten feet from her that said violators may be subjct to Deadly Force. Thise signs are not a blanket "Open fire at will, when this happens" type of authoization.

MLeake is asking a very valid question. But none of us has been able to provide the citations he has asked for. All I can remember from my days in the service was a lot of these signs referenced Title 18, USC.

[ltc444]

When I jumped into this thread, I had hoped to prevent someone from attempting to exercise his "rights" on a military installation and creating an incident which would set cause back.

Such an incident could deny us access to large tracks of land which has been open to the general population for shooting, hunting and fishing.

For those of you who have demanded that I provide proof of my statements I suggest your review the following chapters from Title 50 of the USC and the associated CFRs:

CHAPTER 5—ARSENALS, ARMORIES, ARMS, AND WAR MATERIAL GENERALLY (§§ 51_to_57—100a)
CHAPTER 6—WILLFUL DESTRUCTION, ETC., OF WAR OR NATIONAL-DEFENSE MATERIAL (§ 101_to_106)
CHAPTER 8—EXPLOSIVES; MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE, USE, AND POSSESSION REGULATED (§ 121_to_144)
CHAPTER 13—INSURRECTION (§§ 201_to_204—226)
CHAPTER 15—NATIONAL SECURITY (§§ 401—442a)
CHAPTER 23—INTERNAL SECURITY (§§ 781—858)
CHAPTER 24—NATIONAL DEFENSE FACILITIES (§ 881_to_887)
CHAPTER 32—CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM (§§ 1511—1526)
CHAPTER 33—WAR POWERS RESOLUTION (§§ 1541—1548)
CHAPTER 34—NATIONAL EMERGENCIES (§§ 1601—1651)
CHAPTER 35—INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS (§§ 1701—1707)
CHAPTER 40—DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (§§ 2301—2371)
CHAPTER 41—NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (§§ 2401—2484)
CHAPTER 42—ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROVISIONS (§§ 2501—2822)
CHAPTER 43—PREVENTING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROLIFERATION AND TERRORISM (§§ 2901—2932)

That should give you some good reading and hopefully open your eyes to the seriousness of attempting to exercise your 5A rights on a military installation.

Each of these Chapters and their supporting CFRs, findings and executive orders have buried in them arcain references which can be used to justify the actions I have discussed in previous post.

[Uncle Buck]

Most of the codes you have cited required active acts of hostility towards a resource and therefore are not applicaple.

Joe Dude (Who for some valid reason has access to the installation) decides to go to the BX/PX and has a concealed handgun somewhere on his body. After he goes to the PX/BX he decides to go the base clinic or hospital then to the commissary.

He, for some reason, catches the eyes of security or law enforcement people. He is charged (Under what code, rule or regulation ?) and is given a magistrates ticket. If he really ticks the judge off and decides to challenge the law, what law or code do they use? If the judge can sentence him to more than one year in prison, when Joe Dude decides he is not going pay any fine, what rule does the Judge use.

The majority of US Code: Title 50 - War and National Defense has been repealed according to this website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_50.html

If you enter a military installation with the intent of causing serious harm to others or the war making abilities of the United Staes, that is a different story. (AND that is not what was asked.)

[psyfly]

I'm sure there are a lot of posters on here who know more than I do about law, including military law.

However, I believe that the commander of any military installation can and does make any kind of regulation about his facility which is not specifically prohibited by federal regulation.

My understanding is:

If a civilian violates one of his (sometimes quite local) regulations, the most the commander can do, assuming the civ doesn't violate some regulation which could give the military the actual right to shoot him, is detain and turn over to civil authority where further adjudication can take place, if appropriate.

The fence line works both ways. If state law no longer applies on one side of the fence, the Commander's regulations no longer apply on the other. Once you cross that line inward, you are absolutely under the Commander's rules.

If I, OTOH, as a Civilian DoD employee, manage to pi$$ off the Base Commander, he can dang well do something about it: Although he doesn't have the power to fire me, he can refuse to let me on his facility, making it quite difficult for me to continue to do my job.

I think that the regulation that the OP is asking for exist in those that define how the facility commander is allowed to exercise power to regulate.

Best,

Will

[Slamfire]

There are some very will ful people on this thread, there are ways to test your theories, and the best is to get your self arrested on a military base.

You can get on your soap box and proclaim your legal theories, and then all you have to do is wait and see what happens.

Or, if you really want to test the system, go to Toole Army Depot, the place where all the chemical weapons are stored. I talked with a Government lady who visited that place. She said after proving you were supposed to be there, at visitor control, you sat in a briefing where they told you the do’s and don’ts of the facility. (99% don’ts!). Then you walked out to a location where you unloaded all your bags and briefcases in front of security to show what you were carrying. While you were unloading, military police were there, under a sign that said “Capital Enforcement is in effect”, and they were pointing guns at her while her stuff was being examined!

At that point, pull out your gun and tell them you have a constitutional right to carry it.

That was before 911, I will bet the security has gotten less humorous since then.

Oh, another test, carry your handgun into the airport and try to board a plane.

You don't have to take a gun, just take a water bottle with you. Fight with TSA over it, make a fuss, don't surrender it at all costs.

[MLeake]

The difference is, Slamfire, that you are now discussing interference with a flight crew in the performance of their duties, which is a defined federal felony.

Possession of a firearm inside the secure area, or secure area of the passenger terminal (depending) is a felony in most states. The federal regs get interesting, here. Try to get a straight answer, or even a consistent one, from the FAA about whether and how you can transport firearms on a private plane...

We difficult ones have been asking for either direct links to the defined federal felonies or else the appellate cases that bear directly on the OP.

So far, only ltc444 has provided such, maybe... He provided a laundry list of Title 50 codes that I don't have time to screen. It would be nice if somebody were to peruse those and glean out the appropriate verbiage.

The ability of a base commander to post regulations is not in question, nor is the ability of the commander to give his security forces orders to detain, or in certain circumstances, shoot.

What is in question is what actual charges could be applied to a non-DOD civilian, not subject to UCMJ, after initial detention and assuming he didn't get shot - and where those charges are specified and defined.

I don't think anybody has suggested becoming a test case. I think many of us like to see clearly defined (and limited) federal powers and would like to be able to read and cite the things that define (and limit) them.