Was this appropriate?

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
LightRoasted said:
If I may ...


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.
Click to expand...
(a) says "facility", not lands.

The cop wasn't wrong in my opinion because (a) says "Except as provided in subsection (d)", which allows for legal carry.

The distinction seems to be what a "legal purpose" is, and in my view any non-illegal purpose is a legal purpose.
 
LightRoasted

LightRoasted

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

This_person said:
(a) says "facility", not lands.

The cop wasn't wrong in my opinion because (a) says "Except as provided in subsection (d)", which allows for legal carry.

The distinction seems to be what a "legal purpose" is, and in my view any non-illegal purpose is a legal purpose.
Click to expand...
Yes I know it doesn't say, "lands". But there are, "Federal facilities", shacks/cabins/outposts/offices, within US Parks, BLM managed and other lands under Federal control. That is what section 3 is referring to when it mentions hunting "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. The, "other lawful purposes", mentioned here, would be for say, culling a coyote herd, or managing the Elk population in a given area. Exercising a 2nd Amendment right, though may be a lawful activity, is not lawful when entering a Federal facility, even if wearing a badge and uniform.

Section (d) does not apply because he was not active at that moment during, "the lawful performance of official duties ...", or, "engage[d], in or supervise[ing] the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;".
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
LightRoasted said:
If I may...


Yes I know it doesn't say, "lands". But there are, "Federal facilities", shacks/cabins/outposts/offices, within US Parks, BLM managed and other lands under Federal control. That is what section 3 is referring to when it mentions hunting "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. The, "other lawful purposes", mentioned here, would be for say, culling a coyote herd, or managing the Elk population in a given area. Exercising a 2nd Amendment right, though may be a lawful activity, is not lawful when entering a Federal facility, even if wearing a badge and uniform.

Section (d) does not apply because he was not active at that moment during, "the lawful performance of official duties ...", or, "engage[d], in or supervise[ing] the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;".
Click to expand...
I agree (d)(1), which you aptly described, does not apply. I simply disagree on what "lawful purpose" means. I have a more broad view of the 2A, apparently.

Good discussion, though. Thank you!
 
DoWhat

DoWhat

Deplorable
PREMO Member
LightRoasted said:
If I may ...


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.
Click to expand...
Can you PLEASE stop with the #uckicking ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top