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

Minneapolis VA Medical Center
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6316		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  gyrfalcon [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Minneapolis VA Medical Center
Image

One Veterans Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55417
Phone: (612) 725-2000


It's a shame that veterans are unable to protect themselves coming to and from the VA.
Author:  ree [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yup.
Author:  BigRobT [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
ALL Federal facilities seem to be posted. The AF reserve base is also posted.
Author:  hammAR [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
So are most (not all) of the VFW's....................go figure :twisted:

Glad that you could get up to join us BigRobT.......... :wink:

.
Author:  matt160 [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
I left the VFW when they endorsed Wellstone.
Author:  Brewman [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's "Wellstone!"
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
The VA can't post under Minnesota statutes, but they can and do cite 18 USC 930:

This is what the post office sign says; I imagine the VA sign might be similar:

Image

Read the fine print: "Except as provided in subsection d..."

Subsection D is not on the sign. Here's what the subsection says:

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.


In other words, carrying guns into a federal facility for a lawful purpose is NOT prohibited. Is carrying a gun for personal protection, on a permit issued by the state, a lawful purpose?

I think it is.
Author:  glock+ipod [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andrew Rothman wrote:
Subsection D is not on the sign. Here's what the subsection says:

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.


In other words, carrying guns into a federal facility for a lawful purpose is NOT prohibited. Is carrying a gun for personal protection, on a permit issued by the state, a lawful purpose?

I think it is.


Has there ever been a case involving a permit holder and 18 USC 930?
Author:  brauchma [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Andrew Rothman wrote:
The VA can't post under Minnesota statutes, but they can and do cite 18 USC 930:

This is what the post office sign says; I imagine the VA sign might be similar:

Image

Read the fine print: "Except as provided in subsection d..."

Subsection D is not on the sign. Here's what the subsection says:

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.


In other words, carrying guns into a federal facility for a lawful purpose is NOT prohibited. Is carrying a gun for personal protection, on a permit issued by the state, a lawful purpose?

I think it is.


Why can't they put Section D on those signs...Are they truly anti and want to try and fool law abiding citizens? Bugs me...
Author:  SethB [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
glock+ipod wrote:
Has there ever been a case involving a permit holder and 18 USC 930?

I'm not aware of any.

Test cases are for other people. Got any other people handy?
Author:  BigRobT [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't live near the AF Reserve base. It's a solid hour away from me. It's posted with a non-MN compliant sign. I forget what it states, specifically. It can be read from the frontage rd. I'd be careful about taking pictures, if anybody thinks they could swing by there. I believe that it's red lettering on a white reflective background. The VA signs are more similar to what's posted at the AF Reserve base. They don't look at all like what the post office has.
Author:  Rip Van Winkle [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Last time I was at the VA there were signs at the entrance of the parking lot. I don't remember the exact wording, something on the order of, "it is a felony to posses a firearm on hospital grounds".
Author:  cobb [ Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.

There is a sign posted warning of it being federal property and guns are banned, in fact I think that is what you see in the grass of the center median.

Edited to add - I just have to learn to type faster, right Rip Van Winkle.
Author:  Erik_Pakieser [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I used to be a VA police officer. It is indeed illegal to possess a firearm or ammunition on facility grounds - even in parking lots. I've seen some veterans prosecuted for having loose shotgun shells in their cars.

Something to be aware of if you go to the VA.
Author:  cobb [ Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Erik_Pakieser wrote:
I've seen some veterans prosecuted for having loose shotgun shells in their cars.



So the VA LEO's are walking around and looking in each person's car in the parking lot? :shock:

Also, if the veterans that got prosecuted did not have a carry permit, well the law is black and white in that case.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/