TexasCHLforum.com

GlockenHammer wrote:First, it is not against Federal Law (18 USC 930) to have your gun in your car on NASA property, only to have it in a building. It is against a Federal Regulation (14 CFR 1205.1005 IIRC) that NASA WROTE which includes a provision for someone to be authorized to have a gun on NASA property.

Thank you for pointing this out. I spend a lot of time replying to the misconception that possession on a "federal reservation" (whatever that is) is automatically illegal.

There are Laws, then there are Rules, then there are Policies.

As you pointed out, the law (18 USC 930) only concerns "facilities", defined as buildings where federal employees regularly work. Per the law, loaded concealed carry is perfectly legal right up to the doorway. (Not going into the "other lawful purposes" argument for now.)

And then there are "Rules", where regulations are "codified", or given the weight of law by being written into the Code of Federal Regulations. The CFR is supposed to be used for agencies to write implementing language to help them abide by the laws as passed by Congress. As seen here, there is a history of agencies going waaaaay beyond the law as written, and just creating their own law.

Finally, there are "policies". Violations can get employees disciplined or fired, but there is no legal weight to policies. And the fun part is that all policies are negotiable between the agency and the "exclusive bargaining unit representative", aka "the Union". (There are some exceptions, such as "technology of work" and "internal security practices".)

Kevin

Venus Pax wrote:You're wise to choose your timing carefully.

I don't recall lifting the ban of CCW on schools to be of much importance until the VT shooting.

Important to who?
I thought it was important. I recall postings from others who thought it was important. Congressmen and Lobbyist have short memories with limmited focus and tend to focus on the headlines of the day.

While I pray our merories don't get another refresher. I hope that the disaster stays fresh in the minds of those who have the power and influence for another 2 years.

Liberty wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:You're wise to choose your timing carefully.

I don't recall lifting the ban of CCW on schools to be of much importance until the VT shooting.

Important to who?
I thought it was important. I recall postings from others who thought it was important. Congressmen and Lobbyist have short memories with limmited focus and tend to focus on the headlines of the day.

While I pray our merories don't get another refresher. I hope that the disaster stays fresh in the minds of those who have the power and influence for another 2 years.

Yup. I remember discussing on these boards and in conversations elsewhere about the inability to carry at school. I believe my specific point then was that campus grounds are very dangerous, especially for female students walking the grounds at night to/from the library or some other school facility. At that time, a shooting *inside* a building was not in the forefront of my mind, but the point was raised by others.

(edited for grammar)

GlockenHammer wrote:The Center Director has encouraged the entire NASA family (civil servants and contractors) to send him emails and comments. If he actually reads them (instead of sending them to his security team for disposition), a well written set of facts might have some effect. Perhaps he has been operating under the legal interpretation from security that it's just flat against Federal Law, so no sense talking about it. Perhaps if he got the real facts, he might start thinking.

So if I am understanding you on this point...If you send in a well-written, fact-based, reasonable document for him to look at...They'd consider "allowing" just CHL's to carry their firearms, and keep them locked up in their vehicles while on the clock???

Ok, I can see where that would be an improvement to each individuals personal safety to and from work each day...

But I can already see that they are going to deny it, because it will make no difference in shooting incidents that happened the other day on site??? It may even complicate matters that the security folks (bless their little pea pickin' hearts) that they are going to have to sweat all the CHL'ers, no matter how anyone "feels" about it...

Therefore it'll make no difference if anyone does make a good, fact filled point about the issue of exempting CHL's, and allowing on site storage of personal firearms in vehicles parked on site...

Don't mean to sound like a blithering negative nancy on this, but I see no movement or change in policy at JSC at all...Matter of fact, I bet y'all nothing will change...But I bet they'll be looking to delve a little deeper into employees certifications and other sundry personal information in employee hiring practices...I would not be surprised there...

Makes that bill to keep CHL info private and only to law enforcement inquiries more and more valuable...

stevie_d_64 wrote:So if I am understanding you on this point...If you send in a well-written, fact-based, reasonable document for him to look at...They'd consider "allowing" just CHL's to carry their firearms, and keep them locked up in their vehicles while on the clock???

Ok, I can see where that would be an improvement to each individuals personal safety to and from work each day...

But I can already see that they are going to deny it, because it will make no difference in shooting incidents that happened the other day on site???

I fear you are correct. I read a great article somewhere titled something like "why we will fail to learn the lessons from the Virginia Tech shooting". The author's premise was that any suggestions that would not have helped in this specific shooting will be ignored. I think you're saying the same thing about NASA. No CHL pistol in the car would have stopped this problem, so we're not going to allow that. What they are failing to see is that there is a great number of potential incidents going to and from work where an armed CHL might make a difference. And since they don't really care about our safety and well being, they are happy by not allowing our pistols on site.

stevie_d_64 wrote:Don't mean to sound like a blithering negative nancy on this, but I see no movement or change in policy at JSC at all...Matter of fact, I bet y'all nothing will change

I fear you are right, but I don't want it to be because I sat quietly and said and did nothing.

stevie_d_64 wrote:...But I bet they'll be looking to delve a little deeper into employees certifications and other sundry personal information in employee hiring practices...I would not be surprised there...

Makes that bill to keep CHL info private and only to law enforcement inquiries more and more valuable...

This is a good law, no doubt. However, I don't think the Feds doing the hiring at NASA have a beef against CHLs, they just see no need to go out of their way to protect (allow) our rights. But if they did (or do), you're right that this law is necessary and good.

"GH"...

Press on with the letter/email though...If one center in the NASA domain allows people to bring them on site and stow them in their locked vehicles for no other reason than common courtesy, you might want to make sure those facts are straight, and wordsmith that into your letter...

I think you'll make a good point, and it should impact the management in a positive way and make it that more difficult for them to deny your right...

Like I've always said, we are not the problem...We are at times, a solution though...

Thanks, Bro. I'm going to spend some time wording this very carefully. I will only get one shot and it takes but an instant for the letter to get tossed into a pile/file if it doesn't hit the mark just right....