I am not sure precisely what would have happened, but I am sure that it would have been interesting, to say the least.
I'll ping you if I ever get caught with it. ;-)
Dear Badray,
"I am not sure precisely what would have happened, but I am sure that it would have been interesting, to say the least."
If you don't have a permit to carry the weapon in DC (and these are very rare in DC), if you're caught in DC, off federal turf, you'll be prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm. It's likely that you won't do time, but it's unlikely that they'll give you a PBJ, either. Bottom line, you'll have a felony conviction to drag around with you.
If you're caught on federal turf, all bets are off.
A lot of these folks have memories of the police officers killed by the crazy back in '98 at the Capitol. A lot of these folks have memories of the anthrax deaths at the DC-area post offices. A lot of these folks remember all the folks who had to take Cipro at the Capitol (including some of my own staff) due to anthrax exposure. A lot of these folks knew folks at the Pentagon, or were evacuated from the Capitol. A lot of these folks knew folks who were killed by the snipers.
A lot of us remember a day when we could walk up to the buildings of our federal government without being searched, without passing by jersey barriers, without having to have special permission to enter.
We remember when key parts of Washington were not ringed with troops who stop every vehicle and search. We remember when we marveled that in spite of all the trouble in the world, our capital was an open city. We remember another time.
Folks who carry firearms into federal buildings are, in the eyes of federal law enforcement, terrorists.
Fair or not, you would likely be tried under post-9/11 statutes.
"I'll ping you if I ever get caught with it. ;-)"
I'm not sure that you'd ever be given the opportunity.
sitetest
I'm curious with all this talk of property rights... How many of you would argue that the business has the right to say that gays can't enter the private property because it is, in fact, private. After all, the homosexual doesn't have a "right to that job", does he? He can go find another job if he doesn't like the conditions, right? Absolutely not! He's going to sue the company and win. Someone please tell me if this is faulty logic.
-GDD