TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:07 pm 30.06/07 does not apply to federal facilities as it is part of Texas law. Federal law is something else entirely:

....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

....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.

(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

There is some room under (d)(3) that suggests that "incident to ... lawful purposes" is ok, so I think this battle can be won nationwide if the courts are reasonable.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:53 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:37 am Roy I sure love you, but I hope so much you are wrong.

I hope I'm wrong as well!

I found out today that I WAS wrong about the parking lot having to be posted... I thought it did not, but, apparently it DOES need to be posted, as does the building, in order for gun possession to be off limits...

From another forum...

Full statute here:,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
The application of 930 to post office parking lots is via case law.

tomneal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:40 am These decisions are cumulative.

Every one of them on our side, makes the next one easier for the next judge to rule in our favor.

I appreciate your positive energy on this Tom!