help!!!

[LarryH]

am i reading this correct? Does the law quote above mean that no matter what a sign must be posted? Does it have to be the 30.06 sign or is there other signs that can be used in a federal facility?

That's how I read that section. I suppose it's possible that some other sections of U S code provide for exceptions.

The 30.06 sign only affects Texas. Signs on a federal facility usually refer to the section of U S code that authorizes the restriction, but don't have to, IIRC, follow any particular format.

[LarryH]

(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.

Ya know.. I wonder if the recent supreme court ruling has any bearing on that last statement, as they defined Self Defense as a lawful purpose to own a handgun...

Just a thought.

It'll probably require another lawsuit and another SCOTUS decision to affect it.

[PJK]

I recommend DELETING this POST ASAP. You have an official SSI warning on the original email that you have posted. You are violating that warning.

[dicion]

I recommend DELETING this POST ASAP. You have an official SSI warning on the original email that you have posted. You are violating that warning.

If you read the post, the email says the FSP is protected, not the email. The FSP is what has the verbiage about weapons not being allowed.
He didn't post the FSP. He's fine.

[canvasbck]

I'm the FSO at a MTSA facility. Everything you were told about the FSP is true. They are SSI, so you are not allowed to read it, but you are required to follow the procedures outlined in the FSP or face arrest for a breach of security. Some of it was discussed in this thread;http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35594

[jester]

I don't like it.

Especially since they say "It says in our FSP that they're not allowed... oh, but you're not allowed to see the FSP."
So there's some law or some rules, somewhere... but you can't see it or see what authority it has, or any punnishment.
That doesn't fly with me bub.

Double Secret Probation!

[dihappy]

I recommend DELETING this POST ASAP. You have an official SSI warning on the original email that you have posted. You are violating that warning.

lol

[dicion]

I'm the FSO at a MTSA facility. Everything you were told about the FSP is true. They are SSI, so you are not allowed to read it, but you are required to follow the procedures outlined in the FSP or face arrest for a breach of security. Some of it was discussed in this thread;http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35594

This, to me, is the Stupidest part.

"There's the rules you HAVE TO FOLLOW, or FACE ARREST.... but you can't read them."

...

I'd love to see someone try to make that hold up in court.