By the text of the statute yes, but I don’t believe the case law supports that reading of it.
The guard had lawful use of force as outlined in Title 18, and he drew his weapon to prevent the commission of a felony. He was trained to uphold the federal statute, and unless on official duty, no one comes in armed. The Deputy wasn’t on official duty, and the Deputy wasn’t lawfully carrying his firearm when he walked into the building. Ignorance of the statute is no excuse.
How is the Deputy being in uniform on a lunch break, able to carry a firearm into a Federal building, when Federal statute explicitly states that he can’t. Unless he’s called there on official business, he shouldn’t of had his firearm on him period. The SO drew his firearm to prevent the commission of a felony, which is believe he was trained to do.
What!!!???
The SO over reacted plain and simple. SO should have notified the deputy who obviously who thought it was ok since he had been allowed to do previously. When the deputy agreed and started to leave that should have been the end of it. But the SO drew down on the deputy when clearly there was no threat.
Sorry, the SO was wrong in this case.
I think that’s pretty much where I see this as well.
In practice, enforcing the law allows for some discretion (anyone who’s ever gotten off a traffic citation with just a warning has benefited from this). Since there was no intent to violate the law or cause harm here, I think discretion would have been appropriate.
Proof positive that having a LITTLE training and a gun can be a bad idea. If you are going to be armed, get a lot of training under your belt. I can’t believe the deputy didnt light him up.
I dont know the laws in this particular State, but I believe some States or departments require their officers to always be armed.