TexasCHLforum.com

NASA held a Town Hall meeting to discuss employee security concerns in the wake of the recent hostage/suicide incident on 4/20.

The meeting began with a pro-active monologue from HR and Center Operations (responsible for security and cutting the grass) describing what they've been doing so far.

Of interest to me was the Center Ops guy (Joel Walker) who went through his "top 5" questions he's gotten and their response. Number 4 was "I have a CHL, why can't I have my gun on site?" He followed that up with something like "No, really, there are lots of folks that work on site that have licenses to carry. They're saying 'I want to help' (as in using their gun to stop some hostage situation)". The absurdity of his comment drew a chuckle from the crowd. He continued. "First of all, it's against Federal Law, so it's not going to happen." He continued to point out the obvious issues of on-site SWAT having difficulty identifying the bad shooter from the stupid CHL and that they could be to any building on site in two minutes.

That pretty much nipped any discussion in the bud. I was disappointed. Here's some of where he's wrong.

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. All it would take is a memo from the Center Director or Director of Security that CHLs were authorized to have their gun in their cars (buildings would still be off limits), or even checked in at security. (Interestingly, the White Sands Test Facility in NM is a component facility of JSC and they actually get to hand the guard at the gate their pistol when they come on site. I heard one guard gave a person a lecture for not taking better care of his pistol ).

Second, I doubt any CHL holder would state as their reason for wanting to have their gun locked in their car "I want to help if there is an active shooter on site". PULEEZE. Do you have any idea how far away we have to park? By the time we'd get to our car and back, the incident would probably be over. This is absurd.

The real reason I wanted a dialog on CHLs having their guns in their vehicles at work has nothing to do with an active shooter or hostage scenario. It has to do with driving home late at night after working a mission and stopping for gas and a stale donut at the stop-and-rob. It has to do with coming home to find your wife's ex-husband in your home wielding a baseball bat. And any of about a million other scenarios where the tacticool NASA SWAT guys aren't going to bail you out and all 911 will do for you is start the process of trying to catch the perp and lock them up, if they ever catch them.

I'm just frustrated and I knew y'all would commiserate with me.

OK, would this fly? Since you're not allowed to have a firearm in your vehicle on site, what about firearm parts?

Glock complete upper locked in Glove box, frame under the floor mat and loaded magazine in the console. Drive out of the gate and in less than 30 seconds you have a functioning, loaded pistol.
Maybe a technicality but?

Consider yourself commiserated with.

HighVelocity wrote:OK, would this fly? Since you're not allowed to have a firearm in your vehicle on site, what about firearm parts?

The receiver or frame is a firearm for most legal purposes. A weapon does not have to be in functional condition to get you in trouble.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:OK, would this fly? Since you're not allowed to have a firearm in your vehicle on site, what about firearm parts?

The receiver or frame is a firearm for most legal purposes. A weapon does not have to be in functional condition to get you in trouble.

- Jim

Understood.

GlockenHammer wrote:NASA held a Town Hall meeting to discuss employee security concerns in the wake of the recent hostage/suicide incident on 4/20.

Totally a "window dressing, feel good session" from NASA management...Did they have it in Building 2?

The meeting began with a pro-active monologue from HR and Center Operations (responsible for security and cutting the grass) describing what they've been doing so far.

First, stop the obvious questions and reasonable inquiries from the CHL community, patronize and placate, till the frustrations level gets to the point where we can come in and state "Its not going to happen, so shut up about it!"

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. All it would take is a memo from the Center Director or Director of Security that CHLs were authorized to have their gun in their cars (buildings would still be off limits), or even checked in at security. (Interestingly, the White Sands Test Facility in NM is a component facility of JSC and they actually get to hand the guard at the gate their pistol when they come on site. I heard one guard gave a person a lecture for not taking better care of his pistol ).

This may be true, I have no reason to doubt the information, but I figure this is a fast track to eventually get booted off a contract even for asking...So we're still at the gate...

Second, I doubt any CHL holder would state as their reason for wanting to have their gun locked in their car "I want to help if there is an active shooter on site". PULEEZE. Do you have any idea how far away we have to park? By the time we'd get to our car and back, the incident would probably be over. This is absurd.

If I go out to where I used to park...I ain't coming back, regardless...

The real reason I wanted a dialog on CHLs having their guns in their vehicles at work has nothing to do with an active shooter or hostage scenario. It has to do with driving home late at night after working a mission and stopping for gas and a stale donut at the stop-and-rob. It has to do with coming home to find your wife's ex-husband in your home wielding a baseball bat. And any of about a million other scenarios where the tacticool NASA SWAT guys aren't going to bail you out and all 911 will do for you is start the process of trying to catch the perp and lock them up, if they ever catch them.

Bingo, there's the angle...And thats the seed that needs to be planted into the NASA management to look at this from outside their rose colored glasses now...But figure those odds, right??? You asked the right question, and its one that can be asked of any organization that operates like NASA does...

I'm just frustrated and I knew y'all would commiserate with me.

You're not alone on this one...

Sometimes I wonder if the government really believes the odds that "the people" will just give them a pass everytime something like this happens...They'll (government) pay lip service, and deliver mediocre action to address an issue, regardless if it is 1, 2, 11, 32, 168, 2847 lives that are lost...

America has for too long been one of those "aces" in the hole that the committed hold onto when they feel the time is right...

Somehow it would be refreshing to know that someday it could be perceived by the rest of the world that it is a 100% certainty that it is unhealthy to pursue criminal acts of terrorism and murder against us...Both foriegn and domestic...

I dunno, I'm shooting from the hip here again...I'd rather get my thoughts out there and have it picked at, than not...Sounds almost too Utopian to me, but I believe its a direction we should be heading towards and not always be a target, or reactive to committed criminal acts or actors...

I'll shut it down now...

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I think the key is to persuade people that law-abiding citizens do not go postal because they have a weapon in their car, and people who go postal are not deterred by rules.

I don't know how to do it, other than repeating it as many ways as we can think of.

Stevie, until politicians are voted out of office for these reasons, the country is going to keep going in the same direction.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I think the key is to persuade people that law-abiding citizens do not go postal because they have a weapon in their car, and people who go postal are not deterred by rules.

I don't know how to do it, other than repeating it as many ways as we can think of.

Stevie, until politicians are voted out of office for these reasons, the country is going to keep going in the same direction.

Absolutely...Known that for years...Its going to be that way long after I'm gone as well, I'm sorry to say...

[SWAT] could be to any building on site in two minutes.

They 'could' be, but it's not real likely. SWAT often stands for "Sit, Wait, And Talk"

+1 to your frustrations.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

GlockenHammer wrote:NASA held a Town Hall meeting to discuss employee security concerns in the wake of the recent hostage/suicide incident on 4/20.

Totally a "window dressing, feel good session" from NASA management...Did they have it in Building 2?

No, building 30. They were holding 3 sessions and I attended the first (45 minutes long).

stevie_d_64 wrote:

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. All it would take is a memo from the Center Director or Director of Security that CHLs were authorized to have their gun in their cars (buildings would still be off limits), or even checked in at security. (Interestingly, the White Sands Test Facility in NM is a component facility of JSC and they actually get to hand the guard at the gate their pistol when they come on site. I heard one guard gave a person a lecture for not taking better care of his pistol ).

This may be true, I have no reason to doubt the information, but I figure this is a fast track to eventually get booted off a contract even for asking...So we're still at the gate...

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.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

GlockenHammer wrote:The real reason I wanted a dialog on CHLs having their guns in their vehicles at work has nothing to do with an active shooter or hostage scenario. It has to do with driving home late at night after working a mission and stopping for gas and a stale donut at the stop-and-rob. It has to do with coming home to find your wife's ex-husband in your home wielding a baseball bat. And any of about a million other scenarios where the tacticool NASA SWAT guys aren't going to bail you out and all 911 will do for you is start the process of trying to catch the perp and lock them up, if they ever catch them.

Bingo, there's the angle...And thats the seed that needs to be planted into the NASA management to look at this from outside their rose colored glasses now...But figure those odds, right??? You asked the right question, and its one that can be asked of any organization that operates like NASA does...

It would have to be to the Center Director because the next level down is "the enemy" of this idea.

GlockenHammer wrote:The Center Director has encouraged the entire NASA family (civil servants and contractors) to send him emails and comments.

I've heard that before.

- Jim

This is frustrating.
Is there anything the rest of us can do?
Would private citizens writing letters to these decision-makers on behalf of employees do anything?
If you believe it would help, just give us names and mailing addresses.

Venus Pax wrote:This is frustrating.
Is there anything the rest of us can do?
Would private citizens writing letters to these decision-makers on behalf of employees do anything?
If you believe it would help, just give us names and mailing addresses.

Venus, thanks for sharing my frustration. Unfortunately, public opinion has very little to do with this policy. None of the people involved are elected.

However, I would hope that letters and emails from employees and contractors of JSC might have an effect. I intend to draft a carefully worded letter to the Mike Coats, the Center Director. My hope is that by not sending it electronically, it will be more difficult to forward to someone to handle who will then file it with the other pro-CHL emails without carefully considering its points. I know I am wasting my time, but I believe this is the only opening we'll likely have to ever address this issue.

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.

Actually a Texas CHL holder can carry on Federal Property. It just hasn't been fully tested yet.

WEAPONS ON FEDERAL PROPERTY
AND POSTAL PROPERTY

The following is a true reproduction of the Federal law prohibiting firearms and Dangerous weapons in Federal facilities. Note, that BOLD highlights are applied to parts referenced, and any underlined text, was added by the writer.


US Code, Title 18, Chapter 44

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)Except as provided in subsection (d), 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.

(b)Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c)A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117


(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. (see Footnote 1 )


(e) (no heading - see Footnote 2 )

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c). (see Footnote 3 )

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.


(g) As used in this section:

(1) 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 2 1/2 inches in length.

(3) The term "Federal court facility" means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(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) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (d), as the case may be. (see Footnote 4 )




FOOTNOTES

1) Carefully note the wording of this portion of subsection "d" as it defines where subsection "a" does not apply; In item #3 it says; "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes".

Possessing a firearm incident to the lawful purpose of self defense would fall under those activities exempt from Subsection "a", which is the prohibition and punishment for possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon on federal property.

2) No heading or explanation of subsection (e) was provided in the original text.

3) There is no listing of paragraphs 1 or 2 under subsection (c) in the original text. This was probably meant to apply to subsection (d) which does have paragraphs 1 and 2 listed.

4) Under the subsection (e) it says that you cannot be convicted of an offense if a sign has not been posted informing you of the prohibition, but there is also the phrase, "unless such person had actual notice of subsections (a) or (e), as the case may be". This appears to be a muddy area. It does not spell out, nor does it give examples of, how a person would be given this "actual notice" in absence of the required sign. Other than the required-posted notification (sign), what would suffice as an "actual notification"? A printed handout, a radio advertisement, an employee handbook, verbal warning? Also note that it appears no notification need be given if you have an intent to harm someone with the firearm or other dangerous weapon.






COMMENTS

1) Under subsection (d) it states that the mere possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon does not apply under certain conditions. Paragraph 3 under subsection (d) states, "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

The key parts of this sentence are "lawful carrying of firearms" and "other lawful purposes." Suppose a person is lawfully carrying a firearm via a state issued concealed handgun license and is doing so for the lawful purpose of protecting himself and his loved ones. Doesn't this meet the very definition and conditions spelled out in Title 18, Chapter 44, Subsection 930 of the U.S. Code? It would seem that as long as you did not carry the weapon onto Federal property with the intent to commit a crime you are within the law.

As far as I know, this issue has not been put to the test in court, nor has it been addressed by an official opinion of the U.S. Attorney General.

2) Even if some authority did not feel that carrying a concealed handgun with a valid license was "lawful carry of a firearm" and an "other lawful purpose", you should be covered if you inadvertently entered a Federal facility and saw no posted notification. Subsection (h) clearly states that you cannot be convicted of an offense if the Federal facility did not conspicuously post at each public entrance a notification about prohibited weapons as required by this same subsection. This indicates that you could be beat a conviction for mere possession of the weapon if proper signs had not been posted. See footnote # 4 - related issue.




See Gun Laws of America by Alan Korwin, p. 127 which quotes a "Statute at Large" (basically a law with no number which means it doesn't show up in a lot of archives and indexes, but is a part of the code nonetheless) which states:

The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title...is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, targetshooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity...(emphasis added)



UNITED STATES POST OFFICES

At probably 30+ Post Offices, in Texas, I have observed signs that seemingly prohibits carrying a licensed concealed handgun or other dangerous weapon on Postal property. It read as follows;

WARNING - Possession of firearms and other dangerous weapons on postal property
is prohibited by law whether carried openly or concealed on your person or in your vehicle. You may be fined or imprisoned or both. Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities - 19 USC Section 930, 39 CFR 232-1(1)

Why would I look closely at so many signs that are exactly the same? Because of what I believe is a misprint or mistake on all of the ones I have viewed. From the looks of this sign, you would be breaking the law by just having a firearm in your vehicle as you drove through the parking lot to drop of a letter at the drive through mail box, much less taking it inside the building proper. There are however, a number of problems with the signs at these facilities.

To begin with, the signs reference (United States Code) USC 19. That is not a typo contained in this document, it is what the warning sign actually has written on it. USC 19 has to do with customs duties and absolutely nothing to do with Postal facilities. 39 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 232-1(1) does have to do with the United States Post Office and it states;

39 CFR 232-1(1)

No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.


Although it appears that 39 CFR 232-1(1) denies you the ability to legally carry your otherwise legal concealed sidearm on postal property, consider the following;

• United States Code supposedly trumps any Federal Regulations which would make 39 CFR 232-1(1) meaningless if 18 USC actually gives you the ability to carry on federal facilities.
• Although the Post Office became a self supporting business (corporation) back in the early 80's, it is still under federal laws and regulations. It did not become a private business like we usually think of.
• If the wrong USC was referenced on the signs I spotted in Texas, then under 18 USC, you would not be properly notified and thus could not be convicted.

No one that I know of has tested these waters at either a Federal facility or a Post Office, which technically is also a Federal facility, and there aren't likely to be any volunteers shoving their way to the front of the line. Getting caught and then taking your argument all the way to the Supreme Court would bankrupt you, and the Supreme Court may decide not to hear or rule on the case anyway. Historically they have not on such issues. Carrying into a Federal facility with metal detectors would be self defeating and possibly expensive. They might just turn you away, as has happed to me with small knives, but they would probably arrest you if you attempted to go through with a firearm and were caught. In the end you might beat the rap, but you wouldn't beat the ride.

I know of mild mannered, sane and otherwise law abiding folks who do carrying into Post Offices and Federal facilities, and even schools, sporting events and bars, where we all know CHLs are prohibited. From what I have gathered, they made a decision long ago that they were willing to take that risk rather than go unarmed. I don't think they do it to spite anyone. I think they simply feel concealed means concealed and that if they have to use their sidearm to defend their lives at a prohibited place, it is the lesser of two evils. After all, dead is dead, whether you were legal or not. For me, I avoid with a passion, any place that won't allow me to be armed. I've had to be more creative, but it is working quite well.