40 U.S.C. § 6134
Firearms, fireworks, speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds
It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2022 · leading case: United States v. David Bronstein, 849 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
United States v. David Bronstein, 849 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “The statute here is 40 U.S.C. § 6134 . Entitled “Firearms, fireworks, speeches, and objectionable language in the Supreme Court Building and grounds,” it provides: It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or…”
Banks v. Gonzales, 496 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2007). “On January 4, 2007, on motion of the United States, the felony charge was dismissed and Petitioner was charged by information with the misdemeanor offense of Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm, Firework, or Explosive at Supreme Court Building and Grounds in violation of 40 U.S.C.…”
Truck Trailer Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 17 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “2017) (interpreting “harangue” and “oration” in a provision making it unlawful to “make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds”) (quoting 40 U.S.C. § 6134 ). Here, by contrast, the statutory definitions…”
Banks v. United States, 955 A.2d 709 (D.C. 2008). “THOMPSON, Associate Judge: On January 18, 2007, after a bench trial, appellant Travis Banks was found guilty of conduct proscribed by 40 U.S.C. § 6134 (2002) (“It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or…”
Lawler v. United States, 10 A.3d 122 (D.C. 2010). “Appellants were also charged with violating 40 U.S.C. § 6134 , which bans "firearms, fireworks, speeches, and objectionable language” in the building and on the grounds of the Supreme Court.”
United States v. McHugh (D.D.C. 2022). “in the 24 Supreme Court building or grounds,” 40 U.S.C. § 6134 , by first interpreting “harangue or oration” in light of the other conduct prohibited by the provision—“discharg[ing] a firearm, firework or explosive,” “set[ting] fire to a combustible,” and “utter[ing] loud,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.