Keith B wrote: ScottDLS wrote:
Title 18 is the US Criminal Code. It doesn't just get to be extended to any portion of the CFR that some official wants. There is NO mention of 18 USC 930 in the ruling. 39 CFR 232 regulates conduct on postal property (one of the provisions is you can't post any handbills). Violation is a Federal Infraction (as is a traffic ticket in DC). It is punishable by a fine (theoretically UP TO $5000) and 30 days in jail. 18 USC 930 is a federal misdemeanor
and only applies to buildings/facilities that are posted, and in fact specifically excludes parking lots.
Other Federal property like NASA and USACOE property will have a CFR section with their authority to ban firearms. My suspicion is that most violations are infractions also, but I haven't researched it. On down side of 39 CFR 232 and other regulations that invoke a Federal INFRACTION is that if they have any jail time as a penalty, you would lose your LTC as Texas considers it a Class A misdemeanor.
There doesn't need to be a regulation saying you CAN carry a firearm on Federal property, only absence of one (or a law) saying you can't. In the case of NASA, there is likely a reg somewhere saying you can't and now that they put up a sign to notify you, you'd likely get convicted of the infraction. On they other hand for the Post Office I haven't seen too many signs prohibiting the "property" and there is some question about whether having the gun in your vehicle constitutes "carrying" it or "storing" it on postal property as the CFR prohibits. But the lawsuit in Colorado was the typical dumb DON'T ASK IF YOU DON'T WANT THE WRONG ANSWER...that gun rights people seem addicted to. A better strategy is to weigh the benefit of the activity against the worst case outcome IF the law doesn't go your way.
I wonder if people driving through Texas school zones with accessible rifles and off duty cops in Vermont school zones do this as they commit a Federal Felony by violating the Federal GFSZA.
You willing to bet a paycheck on the fact that the courts wouldn't make the same ruling on property that they did for the post office? If it went the same path through the courts you can bet your bottom dollar they would.
Yes I would, because the one case prosecuted under this Postal reg, against an Employee of the post office, specifically had the 18 USC 930 charges dropped because the gun was not in a facility. And the employee was convicted of the infraction and at the time was a max $50 fine. He also lost his job. Chas. mentioned a case where a NASA employee was charged under their regulations and he was charged with the infraction, but won his case because there was not a sign posted.
This stands against the off duty cops without LTC who risk their freedom by being armed in a school zone in violation of a Felony federal statute. And the MPA carriers, and out of state licensees and rifle carrying people etc.
And I do park in Federal parking lots with my firearm in my car, unless I see a sign that purports to prohibit it, which I have not seen yet.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"