TexasCHLforum.com

Since mentioned by Mr Surveyor, I was at the Post Office near Willowbrook today. There are NO statute signs posted on the exterior door to the lobby or on the inside walls or door to the counter area. The only sign was one defining the penalty for fobbing a PO employee.
If I remember correctly, there were signs in the past.
Just a casual observation

Keep in mind that 30.06 is a state statute. The facilities in question are federal.

30.06 only applies to areas inside the state of Texas. Federal property - while it may be surrounded on all sides by Texas land - is not Texas land, and thus 30.06 does not apply. The wording could be different or it could be 100% effective without any sign at all being posted. Which is why the IRS and SSN buildings themselves are off limits regardless of any posting. The question here surrounds the parking lot and apparently a bit of a grey area (reference to Charles's post above).

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If the only federal law prohibiting the carrying of weapons on IRS "property" is the general prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 930 (quoted by Keith), then it is not illegal to leave your gun in your car.

Chas,

There was actually a sign on the door to the IRS once you got past the metal detectors that quoted 18 USC 930. My take was it was okay to secure it in the vehicle but figured I'd post the question here.

Tom

Kalrog wrote:30.06 only applies to areas inside the state of Texas. Federal property - while it may be surrounded on all sides by Texas land - is not Texas land, and thus 30.06 does not apply.

Does that mean Texas police have no jurisdiction and no authority to arrest there?

Kalrog wrote:Which is why the IRS and SSN buildings themselves are off limits regardless of any posting.

Unless I am mistaken, it has to be posted per subsection (h) of 18 USC 930.

aardwolf wrote:

Kalrog wrote:30.06 only applies to areas inside the state of Texas. Federal property - while it may be surrounded on all sides by Texas land - is not Texas land, and thus 30.06 does not apply.

Does that mean Texas police have no jurisdiction and no authority to arrest there?

Well - they wouldn't be able to arrest anyone for the federal statute, but they probably have general law enforcement authority. There are basically two types of federal jurisdiction, concurrent and exclusive. Concurrent, grants the state authority in the area in question and exclusive doesn't.

However, federal authorities can enforce any state law where they are located based on the assimilated crimes statute 18 USC 13, so technically 30.06 would apply - except the IRS building is a governmental entity, so it would be an exception. Does that make sense? :)

Keith B wrote:Unless I am mistaken, it has to be posted per subsection (h) of 18 USC 930.

Keith,

It's interesting that there is a posting requirement yet the only signs I noted were after the security checkpoint.

There is some interesting case law out of Maine. See http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/get ... 1-1065.01A

Tom

tbranch wrote:

Keith B wrote:Unless I am mistaken, it has to be posted per subsection (h) of 18 USC 930.

Keith,

It's interesting that there is a posting requirement yet the only signs I noted were after the security checkpoint.

There is some interesting case law out of Maine. See http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/get ... 1-1065.01A

Tom

It sounds like this guy was just a jerk. They told him he wasn't allowed to be there, gave him a chance to leave and he decided to argue. I don't see a problem.

Does sound like it needs to be posted and as long as carrying a black powder pistol on your belt is legal in Maine, he might have had a case if they arrested him first without asking him to leave.

Thanks, now I will not go to the IRS office! LOL.

Penn wrote:It sounds like this guy was just a jerk. They told him he wasn't allowed to be there, gave him a chance to leave and he decided to argue. I don't see a problem.

Agreed. The court decided he was okay until they asked him to leave and he refused.

Even if the appellant believed that he was not violating the prohibition against possessing dangerous weapons in a federal building when he entered the lobby of the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building, he was clearly and immediately informed of the policy by the security personnel when he showed them the pistol. A jury could reasonably conclude that his conduct from that point forward was a knowing possession of a dangerous weapon in a federal building.

What I also find interesting is the rationale for Affirmation:

The statute excepts law enforcement officers, military personnel, and those lawfully carrying weapons incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. 18 U.S.C. § 930(d). Murray does not fit any of the exceptions.

What does "those lawfully carrying weapons incident to hunting or other lawful purposes" mean? It would appear that a CHL would be a lawful purpose.

Tom

If the guard was right, then most banks in high rise buildings would be off limits. Why? Cause a large number of them have U.S. Marshal or FBI or ATF offices.

The guard didn't know his posterior from a hole in the ground.

But, keep your CHL away from your DL. I always do. It's in the same wallet but no where near the same place and it isn't visable.

Paco wrote:As I understood it when I took my class is that the 30.06 sign would have to be posted at the entrance to the parking lot, to have the parking lot/garage included in the restriction.

Personally I think the IRS just wants to be the most dangerous entity in the building and being strapped you may pose more power than them.

30.06 is part of Texas law, and it has no bearing at all on Federal property. The Feds can do whatever they want on their own property.

JT

thejtrain wrote:The Feds can do whatever they want on their own property.

That's true ever since they repealed the bill of rights.

thejtrain wrote:The Feds can do whatever they want on their own property.

Yes, but they have to have a rule to back up their charge. 18 USC 930 only covers the building. There would have to be an additional code to cover the parking lot or have it posted (as Charles stated in a previous post.)

Again, this might end up being a 'Beat the rap, not the ride' situation, so you have to tread lightly unless there is case law and a trial case that has been down that road before.