Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Minneapolis VA Medical Center

cobb wrote:

Also, if the veterans that got prosecuted did not have a carry permit, well the law is black and white in that case.

Quote:

(d) 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.

gaygoalie wrote:

cobb wrote:

Also, if the veterans that got prosecuted did not have a carry permit, well the law is black and white in that case.

Unfortunately, federal law would trump any permit laws.. I used to work in a government facility and they were very very very up front with the fact its against federal law to have a gun in your car/on your person/anywhere on the property.

A Brit in MN wrote:

Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum :twisted:

KonaSeven wrote:

A Brit in MN wrote:

Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum :twisted:

Good one Brit

A Brit in MN wrote:

KonaSeven wrote:

A Brit in MN wrote:

Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum :twisted:

Good one Brit

\
And Pat and Pinnacle will be the only ones to defend him, the rest of us will erect the gallows :twisted:

cobb wrote:

That picture of the VA is old. I had to wait for 3 different trains before the light gave me a green arrow to go over the tracks into the VA today. They are one of my customers and am on site there ever week or so.

Andrew Rothman wrote:

They can be as "up front" as they want.

The Minnesota permit is significant, under federal law.

gaygoalie wrote:

Andrew Rothman wrote:

They can be as "up front" as they want.

The Minnesota permit is significant, under federal law.

I don't know if the VA hospital, or even if all federal installations, are covered under the "post office law" Military bases/VA hospitals may be covered by a tighter law. That would be something to ask the VA security folks.

e5usmc wrote:

I'll try to remember to ask him when I see him this week.

DeanC wrote:

Tell him one of your pain in the ass friends put you up to it.

Quote:

"Whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in this Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both"

e5usmc wrote:

DeanC wrote:

Tell him one of your pain in the ass friends put you up to it.

Great, now I have to decide which one of you to blame...

Author:	gaygoalie [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:
cobb wrote: Also, if the veterans that got prosecuted did not have a carry permit, well the law is black and white in that case. Unfortunately, federal law would trump any permit laws.. I used to work in a government facility and they were very very very up front with the fact its against federal law to have a gun in your car/on your person/anywhere on the property.

Author:	Andrew Rothman [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:
They can be as "up front" as they want. The Minnesota permit is significant, under federal law. Quote: (d) 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. The Minnesota permit is pretty clearly a presumptive "lawful purpose." gaygoalie wrote: cobb wrote: Also, if the veterans that got prosecuted did not have a carry permit, well the law is black and white in that case. Unfortunately, federal law would trump any permit laws.. I used to work in a government facility and they were very very very up front with the fact its against federal law to have a gun in your car/on your person/anywhere on the property. Quote:

Author:	A Brit in MN [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum

Author:	KonaSeven [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:
A Brit in MN wrote: Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum Good one Brit

Author:	A Brit in MN [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:
KonaSeven wrote: A Brit in MN wrote: Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum Good one Brit \ And Pat and Pinnacle will be the only ones to defend him, the rest of us will erect the gallows

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

Minneapolis VA Medical Center http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6316	Page 2 of 4

Author:	JonL [ Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:07 pm ]
Post subject:
A Brit in MN wrote: KonaSeven wrote: A Brit in MN wrote: Volunteering for the test case Andrew. And if you are stuck in the klink, we'll argue about your guilt here on the forum Good one Brit \ And Pat and Pinnacle will be the only ones to defend him, the rest of us will erect the gallows Who's bringing the rope?

Author:	gyrfalcon [ Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:
cobb wrote: That picture of the VA is old. I had to wait for 3 different trains before the light gave me a green arrow to go over the tracks into the VA today. They are one of my customers and am on site there ever week or so. Tell me about it! My girlfriend works there and it's quite a hassle if I'm carrying and don't want to "break the law". I'm interested in reading about section (d) though. If it helps any... Try crossing over the tracks on 54th street instead of trying to turn left at the light. It goes a lot faster.

Author:	Mike [ Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:05 pm ]
Post subject:
If you want to discuss the issue, I'd contact the VAPD at their offices in person and have a nice chat. Some years ago, under quite different circumstances, they were quite accommodating and allowed me to secure the hardware in their shop as it was inappropriate to carry the parts I had to go. I seem to recall they had some misgivings about being unarmed themselves. Perhaps Erik can elaborate.

Author:	gaygoalie [ Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Andrew Rothman wrote: They can be as "up front" as they want. The Minnesota permit is significant, under federal law. I don't know if the VA hospital, or even if all federal installations, are covered under the "post office law" Military bases/VA hospitals may be covered by a tighter law. That would be something to ask the VA security folks.

Author:	e5usmc [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:21 am ]
Post subject:
I'm fairly good friends with the Mpls VA Chief of Police, we work quite closely in a volunteer capacity on a weekly basis. I'll try to remember to ask him when I see him this week.

Author:	Andrew Rothman [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:18 am ]
Post subject:
gaygoalie wrote: Andrew Rothman wrote: They can be as "up front" as they want. The Minnesota permit is significant, under federal law. I don't know if the VA hospital, or even if all federal installations, are covered under the "post office law" Military bases/VA hospitals may be covered by a tighter law. That would be something to ask the VA security folks. Well, it's not the "Post Office Law." It's Chapter 44 of US Code, "Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities." And I suppose one could ask the VA police what they would do if a permit holder carried there, and if they said arrest, I'd ask them on what basis. But even that would not convince me that they were right -- only of their intentions, and their understanding of the law.

Author:	DeanC [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:44 am ]
Post subject:
e5usmc wrote: I'll try to remember to ask him when I see him this week. Go to this site and print it. Highlight subsection (d)(3) with a yellow marker. Show it to him and ask what "other lawful purposes" means with respect to a permit to carry obtained under Minnesota law. Tell him one of your pain in the ass friends put you up to it.

Author:	e5usmc [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:52 am ]
Post subject:
DeanC wrote: Tell him one of your pain in the ass friends put you up to it. Great, now I have to decide which one of you to blame...

Author:	DeanC [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:57 am ]
Post subject:
Heh, I just re-read subsection (h) which is the Federal posting requirement. Basically, it reads (to me) that they need a sign at each public entrance that reads: Quote: "Whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in this Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both" The sign "shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility... and no person shall be convicted of an offense... if such notice is not so posted at such facility" No conspicuous sign, no conviction. You might get arrested and go through a rectal exam, but no conviction. You go first, I'll stand here and watch.

Page 2 of 4	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Mike [ Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:
e5usmc wrote: DeanC wrote: Tell him one of your pain in the ass friends put you up to it. Great, now I have to decide which one of you to blame... Blame me. It's popular elsewhere.