Was this appropriate?

This_person

Well-Known Member
Why This Security Guard Pulled A Gun On A Uniformed Police Officer
A sheriff’s deputy in Lucas County, Ohio found himself held at gunpoint while in uniform by some armed security guard contracted by Federal Protective Service. Deputy Alan Gaston entered the local Internal Revenue Service office concerning a question the agency had sent him. He was wearing his service firearm, which security guard Seth Eklund said was not allowed unless Gaston was there on official business. An exchange ensued, Eklund pulls his firearm on Gaston, which prompted a visit by the local police, who were surprised to see that a uniformed officer, their colleague, was the subject of the call. The incident occurred in May of 2019.



So, as near as I can figure this story, a cop comes in to the IRS - on duty, getting paid to be a cop and not take care of personal business - in uniform, which includes his sidearm. Armed security says, "you aren't allowed to carry here unless we call for help from the police." Cop, politely, responds, "screw that, I'm a cop, so I'm not bound by your little rules." Armed security says, "GTFO then." Again, politely, I'm sure. Cop goes to leave, security says, "too late, I'm arresting you."

This kind of goes to a lot of things here, in my opinion. Why shouldn't the cop be able to carry any time he wants? Well, because the government says you can't be armed in the government's office (except, of course, the government folks can). But, why does he need to be a cop to be able to carry any time he wants? It seems the cop wants different rules for himself than other citizens. Seems the government wants no one armed in their offices, though they have no authority to seek that.

Lots of stupid to go around here.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
My take is that the cop was there on personal, not official, business. He was asked to surrender his weapon, which is not allowed in government buildings.

He should have simply handed over the gun.

You'd think, as a cop, he would understand that this security guy doesn't make the rules, he merely enforces them.

This piece is making a big deal out of the fact that the cop was in uniform, so apparently they are unaware that it's not that difficult to get your hands on a police uniform.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
My take is that the cop was there on personal, not official, business. He was asked to surrender his weapon, which is not allowed in government buildings.

He should have simply handed over the gun.

You'd think, as a cop, he would understand that this security guy doesn't make the rules, he merely enforces them.

This piece is making a big deal out of the fact that the cop was in uniform, so apparently they are unaware that it's not that difficult to get your hands on a police uniform.
It's not shocking to me that the cop plays the race card. "I don't play the race card," he says, while he plays the race card. It's 2019, after all.

I wonder if he clocked out to take care of this personal business....

I'm sure he's not allowed, by his office's rules, to surrender his weapon or lock it in his cruiser. Maybe he shouldn't have gone to conduct personal business of work time. Maybe the rules should follow the second amendment that says the government can't stop you from bearing arms. Maybe cops shouldn't think that they are immune to the laws the rest of us have to follow. Maybe the rest of us shouldn't have to follow them, either.
 
Reactions: BOP

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
“I feel there was definitely some racial overtones involved. And I’m not the type of person to throw the race card; I’m just telling you the facts. I looked in his eyes, and I saw hate in his eyes.”
:rolleyes:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
In the other thread I said that everything is political - everything is racial as well. And that's come about just since Obama was elected; it wasn't so pervasive before. Which is kind of hilarious: white America elects a black man to our highest office, and gets called RACIST! for it.
 
Reactions: BOP

This_person

Well-Known Member
Responding to Mr. Eklund’s claims that law enforcement officers cannot carry their weapons in the building unless acting in an official capacity, an officer asks him: “Even if he’s an officer?”

“You’re not allowed to have your weapon on federal property,” Mr. Eklund responds.

“Even us?” a second officer asks.

“Even you, unless you’re here on official business,” Mr. Eklund says.

Who is right?

The U.S. General Services Administration, which sets the rules and regulations governing conduct on federal property, says: “Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by Title 18, United States Code, Section 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.”

Who is “specifically authorized” to possess firearms in federal buildings? Federal, state and municipal law enforcement officers in the “lawful performance of official duties,” federal officials and armed forces, and everyone else “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”
The bolded portion is very close to exactly the wording in Title 18, United States Code, Section 930. It seems to me "or other lawful purposes" means anyone who is legally carrying a weapon outside the building may carry one inside the building, the security officer was wrong (probably taught wrong), and I was wrong for assuming anything different. :blushing:
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
The bolded portion is very close to exactly the wording in Title 18, United States Code, Section 930. It seems to me "or other lawful purposes" means anyone who is legally carrying a weapon outside the building may carry one inside the building, the security officer was wrong (probably taught wrong), and I was wrong for assuming anything different. :blushing:
It's federal property, he has no jurisdiction there unless it's approved business, i.e. serving a warrant.
The officer on duty notified him of the rules, which he should have been aware of anyway, and he simply could have left or complied.
The one point that will be on debate is why the federal agent decided to the deputy under arrest.
I would say at least two thirds of the problem rests with Deputy Gaston , he should have gone on his day off, not armed and in uniform. He should have complied with the federal rules as requested by the officer on duty OR excused himself politely and left. Seems he escalated the situation.
The other third belongs to the officer who arrested him. Unless Deputy Gaston was being belligerent, he should have simply let him leave.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's federal property, he has no jurisdiction there unless it's approved business, i.e. serving a warrant.
The officer on duty notified him of the rules, which he should have been aware of anyway, and he simply could have left or complied.
The one point that will be on debate is why the federal agent decided to the deputy under arrest.
I would say at least two thirds of the problem rests with Deputy Gaston , he should have gone on his day off, not armed and in uniform. He should have complied with the federal rules as requested by the officer on duty OR excused himself politely and left. Seems he escalated the situation.
The other third belongs to the officer who arrested him. Unless Deputy Gaston was being belligerent, he should have simply let him leave.
We definitely agree that he should have gone on his day off.

However, it's likely he would have been legally armed then, too.

So, what does the law say?

(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.

"or other lawful purposes", therefore the possession of firearms does not apply. It is lawful for the officer to be carrying a weapon (it's lawful for virtually ALL of us to keep and bear arms, which was one of my original points), so therefore the restriction on possession of firearms "shall not apply to" him.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
We definitely agree that he should have gone on his day off.

However, it's likely he would have been legally armed then, too.

So, what does the law say?
(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.


"or other lawful purposes", therefore the possession of firearms does not apply. It is lawful for the officer to be carrying a weapon (it's lawful for virtually ALL of us to keep and bear arms, which was one of my original points), so therefore the restriction on possession of firearms "shall not apply to" him.
There is a difference between purpose and right. We have a right to bear arms, being simply on duty is not a lawful purpose. Lawful purpose would be that he was there to serve a warrant, a subpoena or make an arrest - a purpose for his visit that required him to carry a weapon.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
There is a difference between purpose and right. We have a right to bear arms, being simply on duty is not a lawful purpose. Lawful purpose would be that he was there to serve a warrant, a subpoena or make an arrest - a purpose for his visit that required him to carry a weapon.
I think what you are describing would fall under "(d) (1) the lawful performance of official duties". I think "incident to lawful purpose" is simply not having an unlawful intent or action, not carrying illegally.

Given the officer was not charged, I think they imagine it to mean the same thing. Or, they simply didn't arrest a cop. Either is at least equally likely.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I think what you are describing would fall under "(d) (1) the lawful performance of official duties". I think "incident to lawful purpose" is simply not having an unlawful intent or action, not carrying illegally.

Given the officer was not charged, I think they imagine it to mean the same thing. Or, they simply didn't arrest a cop. Either is at least equally likely.
But, it also says:
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.
This is untested waters in terms of court ruling as far as I know.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
The lower is specific to court houses - any reasonable person can see why a courthouse would have limits, like a jail.
you can then understand why the IRS doesn't want people in their buildings with loaded weapons.
We are talking about the Infernal Revenue Service.

I would guess the reason he was't charged is the Sheriff probably asked that he not be charged, because he didn't cross through security and enter the work space. Probably a little professional courtesy and both were given a talking to by their respective boss.

I would wager there are only two armed services allowed in the Capital building, one being the Capital Police, ,the other the secret service.
When the President is in the house, it's probably on the Secret Service in the chamber with him that's armed.

I will tell you that you can recite federal statutes all you want, but each agency has their interpretation and those are the rules people are expected to follow in their jurisdiction.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
$0.02.

First, wondering - given the level of service one usually gets from the IRS when it is not looking to take a citizen's money - if the Deputy figured the uniform would help with "help and access."

Second, wondering if one of the concerns from the Fed side is "fake cop."

--- End of line (MCP)
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
you can then understand why the IRS doesn't want people in their buildings with loaded weapons.
We are talking about the Infernal Revenue Service.

I would guess the reason he was't charged is the Sheriff probably asked that he not be charged, because he didn't cross through security and enter the work space. Probably a little professional courtesy and both were given a talking to by their respective boss.

I would wager there are only two armed services allowed in the Capital building, one being the Capital Police, ,the other the secret service.
When the President is in the house, it's probably on the Secret Service in the chamber with him that's armed.

I will tell you that you can recite federal statutes all you want, but each agency has their interpretation and those are the rules people are expected to follow in their jurisdiction.
I understand, but the law is the law.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
$0.02.

First, wondering - given the level of service one usually gets from the IRS when it is not looking to take a citizen's money - if the Deputy figured the uniform would help with "help and access."

Second, wondering if one of the concerns from the Fed side is "fake cop."

--- End of line (MCP)
I think (don’t know, just think) your second point is true
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
He had no lawful purpose, or any, other lawful purpose, to have his firearm with him in that building. It may be lawful for him to be carrying a weapon elsewhere, even when uniformed and off duty, but once he steps into a Federal facility it becomes unlawful unless in the performance of his official duties. The cop was in the wrong.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If I may ...

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
He had no lawful purpose, or any, other lawful purpose, to have his firearm with him in that building. It may be lawful for him to be carrying a weapon elsewhere, even when uniformed and off duty, but once he steps into a Federal facility it becomes unlawful unless in the performance of his official duties. The cop was in the wrong.
You're making the assumption that a citizen needs to have a purpose other than simply being armed.

I would argue that is not the intent based upon 2 things; (1) what you are describing is already specifically addressed in (d)(1), and (2) in (d)(3) the first "incident to" is "hunting". Unless we assume they mean shooting deer in the lobby, it seems they mean you are armed because you have been out hunting and don't plan on leaving your weapon outside without you.

Contextually, "lawful purpose" seems to be "not planning to use it to cap a bitch." Or, similar.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

You're making the assumption that a citizen needs to have a purpose other than simply being armed.

I would argue that is not the intent based upon 2 things; (1) what you are describing is already specifically addressed in (d)(1), and (2) in (d)(3) the first "incident to" is "hunting". Unless we assume they mean shooting deer in the lobby, it seems they mean you are armed because you have been out hunting and don't plan on leaving your weapon outside without you.

Contextually, "lawful purpose" seems to be "not planning to use it to cap a bitch." Or, similar.
Not making that assumption at all. Subsection 3, to me, reads, if one is hunting on federal lands, ie BLM lands, US Parks etc., and enters a US Park Rangers shack or cabin or office, (a Federal facility regardless of size), either after a hunt, or prior to a hunt, by signing in or out, or letting a Ranger know of your plans, checking on the weather, asking of good hunt camp areas, snow-pack conditions, or for what ever other lawful purpose. I'm pretty sure it does not apply to a Federal facility building within a city. And, in addition, there may very well be certain US Ranger, (or other such similar US Department facilities), cabins/shacks/offices, (Federal facilities), that have signs posted to leave all weapons in your vehicle prior to entering said facilities, such as a main Ranger office building at an entrance to a Park where non-hunting and non-armed people frequent. But a shack/cabin/office within the interior of the park would not. But I'm betting number 3 does not apply to the incident with the cop. He's still in the wrong vis a vis (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.
 
Top