Sticky situation - What do you think??

[DigMe]

I have this "friend" who has a problem and he would like to hear your opinions.

The thing is he doesn't make a whole lot of money but luckily he is able to live in these apartments for medical students because he is about to marry a medical student and then she'll move into the apt as well. The rent is only 245.00 per month, about half of what any other apt in town would cost. He probably would not be able to afford to live anywhere else until next year. The only thing is that these med. student apts that he lives in are on the campus of a Veterans' Admin hospital and VA apts. That means it's federal property and at every driveway entrance there's a big sign that says "No handguns allowed on federal property yadda yadda." While my friend is a law-abiding citizen in every other respect he is torn because he feels a constitutional right to protect himself within his own home but at the same time that means breaking the law. So, he leaves his shotgun at another place but keeps his pistol there in the apt, thus breaking the law but feeling a whole lot safer.

What do you think about this situation? If my friend was forced to use his pistol in a defensive situation within his home do you think he would get in big trouble for having a firearm on fed property? Do you think that his constitutional right to protect himself would come into play at all or would he just be screwed? It's actually about to get a bit stickier too becuase he's not far from getting his concealed handgun license. Opinions please...opinions!

brad cook

 

[Lone_Gunman]

It is probably better to be charged with gun possession than get killed by a bad guy.

Your friend should keep his mouth closed.

 

[EJ]

It would also be a good idea if the gun your friend had was NOT papered to him--

That way no one knows who or how the gun got into the complex-- Perhaps the BG brought it with him and your friend wrestled it away etc etc--

 

[SteelyDan]

If your friend is going into medicine, he will have to grapple with the concept of "doing the right thing." My "right thing" may or may not be his "right thing," but he has to decide for himself and then become comfortable with the fact that he is doing the right thing. Whatever that may be.

 

[rrader]

It's standard proceedure for Federal Government Agencies to misquote or incompletely quote the appropiate sections of Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 930 dealing with firearms in Federal Facilities and on Federal Property. What you will typically see are signs saying something like "FIREARMS PROHIBITED" "Title 18 United States Code prohibits the Carrying of Firearms and other Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities" etc...

This is a very deliberate telling of a half-truth and is done to give the false impression that firearms are prohibited in Federal facilities, when in fact they are not except under very limited circumstances like for instance in Federal Court facilities.

A careful read of Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 930 reveals that firearms are prohibited only if carried with unlawful intent, i.e, to commit a crime, or if the facility is a Federal Court Facility.

Have your friend read United States Code Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 930 and consult a lawyer as well. I beleive that similar restrictions on firearms ownership in State Government housing projects have been struck down in the past as well.

All of the above represents only my opinion of the law.

 

[Jim March]

May I assume that he, like you, is in Texas?

If so, there's another neat factor involved: according to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, there is an individual, personal right to arms.

Now granted, this can be taken away if you're found to have committed a crime, or if a court thinks you're a threat to somebody which has been documented in a hearing, but that is NOT your buddy's situation.

The individual rights ruling in the 5th Circuit (which includes Texas) would therefore protect his right to self defense in his own home. Any Federal law in conflict with that principle shouldn't stand up in court.

I am NOT a lawyer. But you can read the 5th Circuit's decision in US vs. Emerson for yourself, or your buddy can.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

 

[S_O_Laban]

Sec. 930. - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

Sec. 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.

(e)


(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 (d).

(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 (e), as the case may be

If I am reading the above right, unlawfull intent means more jail time than just possession, thus possession is still unlawfull. Comments?

 

[S_O_Laban]

BTW here is where the text of my post came from. Is it not stated correctly ? http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/930.html

 

[rick newland]

Must be nice for him to live there considering how many vet's we have living in the streets.

 

[DigMe]

Must be nice for him to live there considering how many vet's we have living in the streets.

Read it again, guy. He's NOT living in the Vet's home. There are NO vets in these apts. They are specifically for medical students (none of which are living in the streets right now as far as I know) only and he's only living there because he's about to be married to a medical student and they let him go ahead and move in early. She is going to join him after marriage. The veterans have a really nice, large facility that they live in which is MUCH nicer than these apts, which are pretty dumpy.

This deserves a

Thanks to everyone else for the posts.

brad cook

 

[Augustwest]

Section (d)(3):

...the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

My argument would be that protecting myself is a lawful purpose.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't end up in jail anyway though.

 

[Al Norris]

USC 18, 44, 930(D)(3) says: "Subsection (a) shall not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

One of those other lawful purposes is living there. No one to my knowledge has ever been prosecuted for such a violation. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, just that as yet it hasn't.

I routinely walk accross the street from my store to retrieve the stores mail from the post office. As do armed police, retrieving their personal mail.

The Postmaster doesn't like it, but there isn't a thing he can do about it. I carry concealed (with a lawful Idaho CWP) and am simply going about a lawful purpose. As are the armed officers getting their personal mail. We fall into that category of subsection (D)(3).

Read the article at The Gun Zone for a better understanding of the law as it relates to firearms and Federal property.

DISCLAIMER: IANAL and this is not to be construed as legal advice.

 

[TallPine]

You can take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands ...

OR ...

when you offer me an apartment at a reduced price.

 

[TarpleyG]

I was in a similar situation when I first started college. I lived in a dorm and guns were a big no-no for more than one reason according to the people in charge. I kept a .38 revolver there anyway. I kept it hidden and locked in a box and no one knew it was there but me and my maker and I even had a roommate and two suite-mates that were in and out all the time.

I decided that I would rather have it if I needed it and suffered the consequences than not having it at all.

GT

 

[Edward429451]

If he does decide to keep a handgun there on the sly for protection, remind him that there is no friend thats a good enough friend to confide in about this matter. Friends have a way of being friends until they get mad at at you for some stupid thing then dropping a dime on you for revenge.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Isn't it a crying shame...

When the law is so torturous that an honest man can't easily figure out how to obey it?

Haven't we come far from the place where a gun in your dwelling was a no brainer, not worthy of even a question?


And with respect to folks who live on campus: What ever happened to the SC ruling that said that "The protections afforded by the Constitution do not stop at the schoolyard gates?"


Oh, thats's right. 2A is special. It's not REALLY part of the BOR. It doesn't REALLY apply to the states. The people doesn't mean the people, it means the state.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[mercedesrules]

Your friend is accepting a form of welfare. Sometimes there are conditions imposed on welfare recipients.

Until we end all socialistic welfare programs, people desiring the benefits will have to put up with the conditions.

MR

 

[No4Mk1*]

He may risk his wife's Medical career by not paying the extra $200/month to get a real apartment. If she is charged with a felony in Med school that might cause problems. A single person can pay $445/month for apartment housing and pay for school using federal loans alone. With a spouse with an income, it would mean less reliance on loans.

 

[mons meg]

Why did noone catch this little bit?

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

Surely an apartment building wouldn't count as a "federal facility".

 

[BogBabe]

I would think decisions hinging on a person's rights within the privacy of their home might well come into play...... There may be no legal way to transport the gun from the street to the interior of the apartment, but surely the interior of one's home is not a federal facility.