TexasCHLforum.com

austin-tatious wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

C-dub wrote:2.5 inches!!! Really? That stinks. I can't remember the last time I was in a federal building, but still.

Ever been in a post office?

How many people do you think have broken this rule in the Great State of Texas where a legal blade is less than 5 inches?

me

chabouk wrote:

57Coastie wrote:

chabouk wrote:Just because it's a structure on federal land, I have no way of knowing if "Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties", thus making it a "federal facility". Now, some places might be obvious, but even those require that notice be "posted conspicuously at each public entrance".

I'm afraid, chabouk, that someone new to this forum might read this as saying that the requirement for posting a notice might approximate the requirement for a 30.06 sign. That is, that the absence of such a posting might make it OK to carry, concealed or uncealed, in the federal facillity. These are two independent obligations. If the feds neglect their obligation, of course it doesn't relieve you of yours.

I hope they read it that way, because that was exactly my intent, because it's exactly what the law says:

" ....no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility.... "

The law functions exactly like Texas PC 30.06: no proper notice, you can't be convicted.

Edit to add: I see CBR600 beat me to it.

I'm sure the local Judge will be glad to have y'all explain the law to the court and will literally jump through his/her honor's self to get your possessions back to you with the apologies of the court.

Yeah, right!

cbr600 wrote:

57Coastie wrote:I continue to be amazed at how often postings are misread here.

Indeed.

Whereas the subject is the National Park Service, here's a link to a little something from their website.

It says, in part, "no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility"

Got me! I must concede that it helps to read the whole statute, but, just to amuse ouselves and to harken back to another thread some time ago dealing with whether or not things we say on the forum might be used against us:

Let us look at the whole paragraph, not just the "in part" you chose to quote. The paragraph also says, in full, not just in part: "(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) withrespect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be." [Emphasis added]

This last clause is quite different in effect than is a simple equation with a valid 30.06 sign, witness another earlier discussion here about whether or not actual notice outside a business might run with us inside, when there is an invalid 30.06 sign. And of course it seems to be the reasonable consensus that it would not.

Would it not be true that anyone who has read this thread has actual notice of subsection (a). Certainly someone who entered the text into this web site has such actual notice, as does, most likely, anyone else who read this after the text was nicely posted. Would not the fact that they commented on it later serve as proof of their having read it?

One step further in the chain. Isn't it likely that the general public knows that one is prohibited from carrying guns into a federa facility? The rub, of course, is proving that.

If a member of the public were to be apprehended by the FBI for doing so, when no such sign was posted, what would be the outcome? If he were to tell the arresting officer, "But I did not have actual notice, as required by the law," would that not be an admission that he actually did, just knowing about the law? Does he lie, by just saying "but I didn't know I couldn't," and thereby commit a serious federal crime? Or does he take the 5th? Contrary to the intent of the 5th, take it from an old federal LEO when I say that "taking the 5th" under such circumstances tends to get an LEO's hackles up, and you should not expect it to stop there.

Interesting dilemma, if hypothetical. I see no need to go into the standard "take the ride..." spiel.

Prosecutors do things like this. You may take that to the bank. A good one can be expected to make a convoluted argument like I have above, and see where it goes in the hands of one of his new assistants who wants a little trial experience.

Before trying to wipe the egg off my face I must also admit that I was a federal LEO for a long time without knowing about the statutory language you brought to my attention, and I am confident there are others out there now as ignorant as I was. That might be meaningful.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:Before trying to wipe the egg off my face I must also admit that I was a federal LEO for a long time without knowing about the statutory language you brought to my attention, and I am confident there are others out there now as ignorant as I was. That might be meaningful.

Jim

Which brings up an excellent point; most LEO's (federal, state or local) only know that you aren't supposed to carry in such and such location and DON'T know the specifics about the exemptions. They DON'T keep up with current laws. Is that the right thing to do? No, but it's reality. They rely on the DA to figure out if the arrest they made was valid or not. Just like our member who got arrested in Round Rock for UCW because he was printing or accidentally exposed his CCW, they WILL arrest you and let the DA or Judge figure it out.

57Coastie wrote:This last clause is quite different in effect than is a simple equation with a valid 30.06 sign

Correct. More like 30.06 in its entirety, which provides for oral communication as an alternative to the signs.

austin-tatious wrote: How many people do you think have broken this rule in the Great State of Texas where a legal blade is less than 5 inches?

5.5" IIRC.

Gearheart wrote:

austin-tatious wrote: How many people do you think have broken this rule in the Great State of Texas where a legal blade is less than 5 inches?

5.5" IIRC.

You are correct

PC 946.01. DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter:
(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;

Oldgringo wrote:I'm sure the local Judge will be glad to have y'all explain the law to the court and will literally jump through his/her honor's self to get your possessions back to you with the apologies of the court.

Yeah, right!

I hope some day you're arrested when you're not breaking the law and think it's as funny when the shoe is on your foot.

Trinitite wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I'm sure the local Judge will be glad to have y'all explain the law to the court and will literally jump through his/her honor's self to get your possessions back to you with the apologies of the court.

Yeah, right!

I hope some day you're arrested when you're not breaking the law and think it's as funny when the shoe is on your foot.

patriot76 wrote:Thanks! I also learned that my pocket knife better be less than 2 1/2 inches. Time to get out my ruler!
I wonder how many people like me did NOT know that about pocket knives and Federal buildings??

Uh...I didn't know it. That makes me shudder. I'm glad I read that

marksiwel wrote:

Trinitite wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I'm sure the local Judge will be glad to have y'all explain the law to the court and will literally jump through his/her honor's self to get your possessions back to you with the apologies of the court.

Yeah, right!

I hope some day you're arrested when you're not breaking the law and think it's as funny when the shoe is on your foot.

What makes you two think I haven't? Growing up is a process whereby one learns from mistakes by oneself and by watching others.