Page 2 of 3
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:16 pm
by Lambda Force
RicoTX wrote:I don't understand how any republican is okay with government property being off limits and still honestly support 2A?
No politician who
honestly supports the Second Amendment would condone a firearms ban on government property open to the public like a post office or a COE lake, any more than a politician who supports the First Amendment would condone a ban on Bibles in those places.
No Texas politician who
honestly supports the our gun rights would condone a different set of off limits places for LTC and off duty LEO.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:26 pm
by WildBill
Lambda Force wrote:RicoTX wrote:I don't understand how any republican is okay with government property being off limits and still honestly support 2A?
No politician who
honestly supports the Second Amendment would condone a firearms ban on government property open to the public like a post office or a COE lake, any more than a politician who supports the First Amendment would condone a ban on Bibles in those places.
No Texas politician who
honestly supports the our gun rights would condone a different set of off limits places for LTC and off duty LEO.
"Honestly". That's the magic word.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:27 pm
by ScottDLS
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.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:18 pm
by Keith B
ScottDLS wrote:
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.
UMMMMM!!! I'M TELLING!!!!! (Wait, you already did!)
You may be correct. However, I am to the point I don't trust any of our liberal courts on correctly interpreting what the law says. In the end, the ones involved still went through a major ordeal, even if charges were dropped. They may beat the rap, but not the ride. if you are willing to take the chance that you are right, then that is a personal choice. Hopefully it won't come to that for you, the OP or any other member to have to fight for a clarification.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:44 pm
by WildBill
Keith B wrote:ScottDLS wrote:
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.
UMMMMM!!! I'M TELLING!!!!! (Wait, you already did!)
You may be correct. However, I am to the point I don't trust any of our liberal courts on correctly interpreting what the law says. In the end, the ones involved still went through a major ordeal, even if charges were dropped. They may beat the rap, but not the ride. if you are willing to take the chance that you are right, then that is a personal choice. Hopefully it won't come to that for you, the OP or any other member to have to fight for a clarification.
When I worked there, I wouldn't take the chance of getting arrested, which would automatically mean I would also lose my job. A double whammy!!!
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:23 am
by chasfm11
I guess that i don't understand. In Morris v U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the outcome was narrowly applied to the jurisdiction of that court instead of to all USACE land. To fix that short of Federal legislation, someone in each District court would have to file suit and reference the Morris outcome. How then can a case from the 10th District have such a far reaching impact?
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:32 pm
by WildBill
chasfm11 wrote:I guess that i don't understand. In Morris v U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the outcome was narrowly applied to the jurisdiction of that court instead of to all USACE land. To fix that short of Federal legislation, someone in each District court would have to file suit and reference the Morris outcome. How then can a case from the 10th District have such a far reaching impact?
Appellate Courts have the discretion to limit their decisions to the case of the particular plaintiff or make a broader ruling.
The SCOTUS does that as well as the lower courts. Unfortunately, I think that politics plays a major part in that decision.
I don't know all of the particulars of the law, but I believe that if they applied the ruling to all USACE land, then anyone from another jurisdiction could file a lawsuit to appeal that decision.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:47 am
by Bitter Clinger
The same signs are up at the Bush Museum on the SMU Campus and they made me go back and place my ZT folder in car, would not allow it through metal detector.
One signs claims that this legal under Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1280.4, Subpart A. and the second sign claims that Firearms or other dangerous weapons are prohibited and it is a violation of Federal Law punishable by fine and/ or imprisonment to introduce them into a Federal facility (18 U.S.C 930).
Of course there are armed "security" guards everywhere, some of whom look to be more of a threat than any of the visitors.
So, I am certain that I must have missed the explanation here somewhere, but since IANAL,how is it legal for the government to pas a law that negates the Constitution?
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:57 am
by WTR
In my experience , NASA is one of the most restrictive agencies I have dealt with.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:42 am
by ScottDLS
WTR wrote:In my experience , NASA is one of the most restrictive agencies I have dealt with.
I was recently at NASA Huntsville, AL on business and saw no postings on their buildings, however the buildings are on the property of a US Army base Redstone Arsenal and vehicles are subject to inspection....
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 11:55 am
by powerboatr
treadlightly wrote:Do those strict regs include the parking lot at Space Center Houston, the tourist center?
Years ago I remember having to return to my car to get rid of my Leatherman, but security was understanding about that.
we go there about 4 times a year.
never seen a sign on the parking lot for the visitor center. but there are signs at the main doors.
but no way can you carry in the building, or on the trams that go to the man campus. you will be in very hot water real fast.
if you not have taken the level 9 tour.....you are missing out on about 75% of the nasa campus.
its well worth the cost
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:40 pm
by flowrie
I see this thread is kinda old, so asking this...
Is the parking lot to Space Center Houston OK to carry and store in your vehicle?
Has anyone been there lately?
I did find this on the website..
Space Center Houston, the Official Visitor Center of NASA Johnson Space Center, is one of the nation’s leading educational resources focused on the dramatic history, exciting present and important future of America’s spaceflight program. A project of the nonprofit Manned Space Flight Education Foundation – not a government agency – Space Center Houston uses space exploration to inspire wonder and interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).
And I found this....
Space Center Houston is owned and operated by the nonprofit Manned Space Flight Education Foundation with extensive education programs, a museum of space artifacts and exhibits, space attractions and your gateway to tour NASA Johnson Space Center.
So I can reasonably assume the parking lot is not federal property and not controlled by any government agency.
Any advice? I will be traveling from far away in a car with the wife and kid, want to be able to carry and store in the vehicle on a long road trip.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:16 am
by Liberty
Last I heard the Visitor center is posted. The Parking lot is not. The NASA campus is verboten by Feds.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:10 am
by Keith B
The parking lot is still federal property, however I believe they turn a blind eye to parking lot storage, at least that was what I was told by a security person there a few years ago.
Re: Sign on NASA property
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:59 pm
by spectre
WildBill wrote: ↑Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:26 pm
Lambda Force wrote:RicoTX wrote:I don't understand how any republican is okay with government property being off limits and still honestly support 2A?
No politician who
honestly supports the Second Amendment would condone a firearms ban on government property open to the public like a post office or a COE lake, any more than a politician who supports the First Amendment would condone a ban on Bibles in those places.
No Texas politician who
honestly supports the our gun rights would condone a different set of off limits places for LTC and off duty LEO.
"Honestly". That's the magic word.