Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Hilemark wrote:
The problem is that if the excemption, "other lawful purposes" does not apply then no one can even drive onto post office property with a firearm in the car.

Correct. Federal employees "work" in the parking lot when they empty the mailbox.

Hilemark wrote:
Because if we don't ask questions about what the law says then all of us in Virginia would still be under the impression that we could not carry into a place of worship. "....with out good a suficant reason."

Well, from what I understand in speaking with some legal types, technically we still can't. While the AG's opinion that self-defense is a "good and sufficient" reason to carry, and that holds alot of weight, it is still just an opinion. A judge can still always find you guilty.

ProShooter wrote:

Hilemark wrote:
Because if we don't ask questions about what the law says then all of us in Virginia would still be under the impression that we could not carry into a place of worship. "....with out good a suficant reason."

Well, from what I understand in speaking with some legal types, technically we still can't. While the AG's opinion that self-defense is a "good and sufficient" reason to carry, and that holds alot of weight, it is still just an opinion. A judge can still always find you guilty.

I hope this is to actually read, "A jury can still always find you guilty."

novasig226r wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Hilemark wrote:
Because if we don't ask questions about what the law says then all of us in Virginia would still be under the impression that we could not carry into a place of worship. "....with out good a suficant reason."

Well, from what I understand in speaking with some legal types, technically we still can't. While the AG's opinion that self-defense is a "good and sufficient" reason to carry, and that holds alot of weight, it is still just an opinion. A judge can still always find you guilty.

I hope this is to actually read, "A jury can still always find you guilty."

not if it's a bench trial...lol

cyras21 wrote:

not if it's a bench trial...lol

exactly.

Carrying for personal protection is considered a lawful purpose according to the 1964 gun ban text.

nuc65 wrote:Carrying for personal protection is considered a lawful purpose according to the 1964 gun ban text.

Could you provide a citation for that? It's a pretty bold claim.

Diomed wrote:

nuc65 wrote:Carrying for personal protection is considered a lawful purpose according to the 1964 gun ban text.

Could you provide a citation for that? It's a pretty bold claim.

+1

Gun Control Act of 1968 (Title 18, US Code, Chapter 44, Title I, Section 101) states

"The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements
other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title."

This is the source of nuc65's information. Use of this information in any meaningful way however must be taken with other US Code statutes, understanding the US Government position on the statutes and applicable case law.

I don't think the preamble of the Gun Control Act (whether the original or the one modified by FOPA as quoted above) has any legal standing. If you're relying on that to save your ass if caught carrying in a federal facility, good luck to you, you're gonna need it.