Concealed carry in a US Post Office ??


PDA






rfwobbly
December 21, 2008, 09:06 PM
I understand Federal office buildings are not for carry, but does that apply to Post Offices. I go pick up my mail from my PO box late at night well after business hours and usually pick up some groceries in the same trip. It would help not to have to put it on, take it off, put it on, etc.

Appreciate any insights or thoughts.

:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed carry in a US Post Office ??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
okespe04
December 21, 2008, 09:09 PM
You cannot carry in a post office.

MP3Mogul
December 21, 2008, 09:14 PM
I do it anyway.... I don't worry about getting caught. I'd rather be prosecuted for carrying in a post office if I have to shoot! Carrying concealed, they won't know anyway unless I draw to shoot.

Rodentman
December 21, 2008, 09:29 PM
The instructor in our CCW class said the PO was not technically Federal property so carry is allowed.

okespe04
December 21, 2008, 09:45 PM
My instructor for the CHL in Oregon said it was a no go. Must be another gray area. I was always a fan of the COTUS.

psyopspec
December 21, 2008, 09:49 PM
Just when you thought it was safe to come out...

jonnyc
December 21, 2008, 09:57 PM
Rodentman, you need to seek legal advice elsewhere;)
Illegal to carry in a PO...but I wonder how they'll ever know?

franconialocal
December 21, 2008, 10:26 PM
I'm really not in the position of giving FEDERAL law advice, but I would certainly be wary of the statement that "A post office is not TECHNICALLY a federal building". It IS a federal building...period.

It's your choice to carry there or not "wondering if you will get caught", but the law will have little room for interpretation here IMO.

GunLvrNLearner
December 21, 2008, 10:52 PM
NEVER go with the "how will they know" attitude and stick with ONLY carry where permitted,if one is going with the "how will they know" then why even get a permit


It imo also makes us as fighting for gun rights when we refuse or try to "sneak" around laws,I do not take mine into the post office

TAB
December 21, 2008, 10:56 PM
Rather its legal or not... you really, really don't want to mess with the post office.

GunLvrNLearner
December 21, 2008, 11:31 PM
I think i prefer the annoyance,hassle,or lack of hassle to remove my gun to losing my permit,my gun,and possibly the right to ever own a gun again plus a criminal record and fines and jail time,i've never been in jail but i know i do never want to go and i do everything i can to stay out

rfwobbly
December 22, 2008, 12:19 AM
Good point. In Georgia, my right to a CCW permit is based on no convictions.

elderboy02
December 22, 2008, 12:28 AM
You cannot carry a firearm into a post office in Ohio.

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 01:02 AM
Whether or not the Post Office is a federal building is irrelevant. There are specific United States Postal Service regulations, having the force of law, prohibiting guns in a Post Office. See 39 CFR 232.1. See also, http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening .

Eightball
December 22, 2008, 01:13 AM
This thought has never occurred to me, but then again I don't frequent PO's much. Good info.

Dienekes
December 22, 2008, 01:14 AM
As I recall, it is only illegal if you are illegally carrying in the first place. So with a proper CCW (or in VT or AK) that would not be an issue. I often run into a deputy sheriff I taught classes with in the PO, and he doesn't seem too interested...

There was a fairly extensive discussion on that on a now defunct CCW board.

There is also "Don't ask, don't tell.

QuickRick
December 22, 2008, 01:18 AM
IF it is in fact illegal to carry in a post office, you are innocent until proven guilty and you said you carry concealed. Chances are you would not need your piece until outside or possibly getting into your vehicle anyway. Better to have and not need than the other way around.

S&Wfan
December 22, 2008, 02:58 AM
Getting caught would be a GREAT time to hire the most expen$ive lawyer you can get to argue your case that a post office is NOT a federal building . . . even though it is protected this way for obvious reasons!

You might even WIN too . . . after taking it to the US Supreme Court and selling all you own to pay your lawyer. Then again . . . you'd most surely lose. Good lawyers get rich this way, win or lose!

Either way, in the end, it might cost you all you've accumulated.

Carry if you wish . . . for if it is concealed, no one should know. Then again, if something goes down while you are in the post office . . . expect to be detained and patted down as the LEOs sort out if anyone else present was involved in the robbery/whatever too! When they find your roscoe you will be in deeeeep sh____tuff!

T.

boomana
December 22, 2008, 07:55 AM
It is illegal to carry in a post office: the post office is a federal building. However, according to Gutmacher's Florida Firearms: Law, Use & Ownership, which covers state and federal laws, the post offices set up in card stores or Mail Box Etc.s are considered "contract post offices" and wholly private. You should be fine to carry there. Maybe that's what your instructor was talking about.

What I find interesting on this and other forums that discuss concealed carry is that there's an increasing trend for folks to casually recommend violating laws while touting the rights of law abiding citizens to carry. Really bad form. I also find it scary that many folks (not necessarily those posting here) have their concealed weapons licenses and/or permits and have not taken the time to learn the laws and rely on internet threads for basic information and advice, some of which, as evidenced by this thread, is just plain bad. It's a right to carry a weapon, but it's also a huge responsibility. C'mon people.

outerlimit
December 22, 2008, 08:01 AM
That's right S&Wfan, because as soon as a robbery takes place, police will be right on the scene. And before you even make it out the door to your car. :)

I'm getting very close to the point where I don't even care anymore about where I can and where I can't carry. Oh nevermind, I was at that point many years ago. Nevermind.

Bubba613
December 22, 2008, 10:24 AM
I'm getting very close to the point where I don't even care anymore about where I can and where I can't carry. Oh nevermind, I was at that point many years ago. Nevermind.
__________________

Quoted for truth.

All POs are posted, to the best of my knowledge. You cannot legally carry there.
That's what a j-frame in the pocket is for.;)

harmonic
December 22, 2008, 10:41 AM
As a private citizen you absolutely cannot legally carry into a US Post Office.

If you were to ever have to defend yourself, you'll likely be charged, convicted, and lose your right to ever own another firearm.

Olympus
December 22, 2008, 10:45 AM
I think you'd be better off reading your state statutes regarding the issue. Here in Missouri, it lists a post office as a location where you are prohibited to carry. But in the fine print, it says that if you do decide to carry a weapon into a prohibited location, that it shall NOT be a criminal offense. You can be asked to leave or asked to remove your firearm. If you refuse then you can be cited for a violation for your first time. If it's a second or third then the penalty goes up. So in Missouri you can carry a gun in any of the prohibited places granted you aren't caught...and even if you are and it's your first time, you'll just be asked to leave or to remove your weapon. If you're concealing correctly then it should never even come to that.

PcolaDawg
December 22, 2008, 12:42 PM
In Florida, you are NOT allowed to ccw in a post office or bank. Which is foolish, since those are two places (especially the bank) where you might actually run into an armed assailant bent on doing you harm.

Oh well.

However, as the police officer who gave me this information said, "If you're carrying concealed, they won't know about it anyway".

Be that as it may, if you get caught with a gun peeking out at a bank or a post office, you could be in big trouble, so conduct yourself accordingly.

golden
December 22, 2008, 12:50 PM
In FLORIDA, you can carry a concealed weapon in a bank. It is other financial institutions where you cannot carry concealed. The banks were specified as separate under FLORIDA law.

You cannot carry in a post office. That is a FEDERAL Postal Regulation.

Jim

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 12:55 PM
...What I find interesting on this and other forums that discuss concealed carry is that there's an increasing trend for folks to casually recommend violating laws while touting the rights of law abiding citizens to carry. Really bad form....
I agree. One is no longer a "law abiding citizen" when he willingly, knowinly and intentionally breaks laws.

...you'd be better off reading your state statutes regarding the issue. Here in Missouri, it lists a post office as a location where you are prohibited to carry. But in the fine print, it says that if you do decide to carry a weapon into a prohibited location, that it shall NOT be a criminal offense....
That's only under state law. But carrying in a Post Office is a federal criminal offense. You may only be trespassing under state law, but you've committed a felony under federal law.

Olympus
December 22, 2008, 01:08 PM
But carrying in a Post Office is a federal criminal offense. You may only be trespassing under state law, but you've committed a felony under federal law.

I think you might be mistaken on that. The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal Facilities. Others have disputed that 18 U.S.C. 930 does not apply to postal offices though. You should consult with your state statutes I would think still.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

So let's look at subsection (d). (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

As you can see in (d)(3), it is lawful to carry a firearm into a Federal facility incident to hunting or “other lawful purposes.” Just what are “other lawful purposes” though? If you carry a gun into a Federal facility with the intent to commit a crime therein, then it would seem pretty obvious that you are not engaged in “lawful purposes.” However, if you carry a concealed weapon, with a valid concealed weapons permit, and you are not intending to commit any crimes therein, you should be well within the meaning of “lawful purposes.”

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 01:14 PM
I think you might be mistaken on that. The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal Facilities....
Nope, I'm not mistaken. And the relevant law is 39 CFR 232.1. See post 14 and the link in that post.

Olympus
December 22, 2008, 01:21 PM
39 CFR 232.1 was exactly what I was referring to about others disputing 18 USC 930. I've been doing some research that shows a lot of people are challenging this.

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 01:25 PM
I've been doing some research that shows a lot of people are challenging this.
That's fine. That's what courts are for. But until a court tosses it out, you remain at risk of prosecution. So carry in the Post Office, get arrested, spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars fighting it; and see how it works out. Personally, I'll forgo that opportunity.

MT GUNNY
December 22, 2008, 01:31 PM
I do anyway, I'm a late Retriever of mail also. Hows the saying go; Better to be Judged buy 8 than carried buy 6. Plus if it is a good shoot, then fight with a good lawyer and the Civil Defense Fund. Maybe you could get the Law changed ! Be the next (LAST NAME HERE) VS (YOUR STATE HERE)

CoRoMo
December 22, 2008, 01:33 PM
It would help not to have to put it on, take it off, put it on, etc.

Don't expect the federal government to convenience you.:fire:


I learned that you also cannot carry a knife with a blade exceeding 3" or so (I'm not sure of the specific length) into a federal building either. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
I learned this after having carried a 3.5" pocket knife for years, once a week into a local post office.:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss:

I believe it (the knife) is a class 3 felony??? Unsure exactly, but that is what an instructor told me once.

Jason M
December 22, 2008, 01:35 PM
No-Go Locations:

Post Office
Social Security Office
National Parks (unless stated otherwise)
Courthouses (local or federal)
Clerk's Offices (local or federal)
Schools
Libraries

...forget the list...let me make this simple...

You cannot carry on/in federal property.
You cannot carry on/in local government property.
You cannot carry on/in school property.

When I go to the post office, the firearm stays in the car. If you get caught with a gun on federal property and you are not authorized to have one, you are looking at a felony.

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 01:35 PM
...Be the next (LAST NAME HERE) VS (YOUR STATE HERE)
Actually, it'll be United States v. [Your Name Here].

shotgunjoel
December 22, 2008, 01:40 PM
In our post office there is a sign that says it's illegal, and we don't even have CCW here in Illinois.

Jason M
December 22, 2008, 01:41 PM
As I recall, it is only illegal if you are illegally carrying in the first place. So with a proper CCW (or in VT or AK) that would not be an issue. I often run into a deputy sheriff I taught classes with in the PO, and he doesn't seem too interested...

There was a fairly extensive discussion on that on a now defunct CCW board.

There is also "Don't ask, don't tell.


Just because your local Sheriff pal isn't interested that you conceal carry into a PO doesn't make it legal. Heck, I don't care if you were embezzling money from your place of work, but that doesn't make it legal.

"Don't ask, don't tell"--are you serious?

You don't have to ask, then already told you no. It's not the governments job to tell what is and is not legal. The information is available so research it.

Irresponsible concealed weapon carry pisses me off 2nd only to drunk drivers. Every irresponsible concealed weapons permit holder is getting us one step closer to an abolished 2nd Amendment. Be ashamed of yourself and get legal.

Jason M
December 22, 2008, 01:43 PM
I do anyway, I'm a late Retriever of mail also. Hows the saying go; Better to be Judged buy 8 than carried buy 6. Plus if it is a good shoot, then fight with a good lawyer and the Civil Defense Fund. Maybe you could get the Law changed ! Be the next (LAST NAME HERE) VS (YOUR STATE HERE)


It's judged by 12, carried by 6. But you don't want the Grand Jury judging you.

Olympus
December 22, 2008, 01:49 PM
What about a drunk driver who is irresponsibly concealing? :what:

Take a situation like the postal employee that shot everyone. If that were to ever happen again and a customer had a concealled weapon and used it on the gunman, do you think they'd be a felon or a hero?

Jason M
December 22, 2008, 01:51 PM
Or to be decidedly clear:

From 39 CFR section 232.1 paragraph 5 part L:

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person
while on postal property may carry
firearms, other dangerous or deadly
weapons, or explosives, either openly
or concealed, or store the same on
postal property, except for official purposes

It is not made more clearly than that. That paragraph trumps ANY regulations your state may have for this issue. TECHNICALLY, it also says you can't leave it in your car, either while you go in.

Jason M
December 22, 2008, 01:52 PM
What about a drunk driver who is irresponsibly concealing?

Take a situation like the postal employee that shot everyone. If that were to ever happen again and a customer had a concealled weapon and used it on the gunman, do you think they'd be a felon or a hero?

He'd be a felonious hero.

Hey, I'm pro-carry, but you can't deny the letter of the law--especially when it is not ambiguous at all on this matter.

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 02:47 PM
...Take a situation like the postal employee that shot everyone. If ...a customer had a concealled weapon and used it on the gunman, do you think they'd be a felon or a hero?
He'd be a felonious hero....
And they'd give him a nice plaque to hang on his cell wall.

moga
December 22, 2008, 02:48 PM
Dangerous weapons are prohibited in ANY post office, regardless of your state of residence.

Off the top of my head, I believe that the applicable section in US Code is Ch 44, 18 Sec 930. Any leased or owned federal property is off limits to anyone that isn't federal law enforcement, except for hunting in appropriated federal outdoor recreation areas.

mljdeckard
December 22, 2008, 02:49 PM
As of 1 Jan, state laws dictate carry policies for national parks.

On THR, we follow the law, period.

If I were in a position where I had to get mail from a box, I would look at a place like Mailboxes etc, that's not federal property, and you probably get better service in general anyway.

w_houle
December 22, 2008, 02:54 PM
Actually, if you read all the signs up at the post office; you will see one with a gun inside a red circle with a red bar on it. The sign states that carrying a gun violates 18 USC 930(d) (I think)
Edit: Didn't See that there was a page two.

KBintheSLC
December 22, 2008, 04:13 PM
All you need to do is look at the sign at the entry of any PO... they show a picture of a gun with a slash through it, followed by the Federal criminal codes you are violating by CCW'ing in the PO. They have a strict no guns policy in every PO across the nation. However, they do absolutely nothing to enforce it... besides the cute little piece of paper at the entry way.

Be ashamed of yourself and get legal. -Jason M
I'm sure that is exactly what our founding fathers said to each other when referring to the stringent regulations brought forth by the English aristocracy... :(
Something like this "you terrible excuse for a human being, how dare you fail to abide by the commonsense regulations we have been blessed with by his highness the King?"

Honestly, can you really blame people for saying "f-u" to Uncle Sam's endless infringements on our constitution? "Get legal"... ok, but when will they stop making more and more laws against us? There are over 22,000 gun restrictions on the various books from coast to coast. How much must we endure? Eventually, we could all become criminals.

Olympus
December 22, 2008, 08:15 PM
I read somewhere that there was a case against a person for carrying into the post office. I can't remember what the name of the case was, but the basic jist of it was that the defendant used the excuse that the lobby where the mailboxes were was considered a type of lobby and similar to the area of airports that people can congregate before going through security and into the terminals. For some reason I can't find it using any kinds of searches so I don't know what the outcome was. That part might be relevant to people who have PO boxes.

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 08:32 PM
I read somewhere that there was a case against a person for carrying into the post office. I can't remember what the name of the case was, but the basic jist of it was that the defendant used the excuse that the lobby where the mailboxes were was considered a type of lobby and similar to the area of airports that people can congregate before going through security and into the terminals. For some reason I can't find it using any kinds of searches so I don't know what the outcome was. That part might be relevant to people who have PO boxes.
It might be relevant if it actually exists, someone can find it, and it turned out the way you'd want it.

...However, they do absolutely nothing to enforce it... besides the cute little piece of paper at the entry way....
How sure are you? True, they usually don't do pat downs. But someone posted here about a Post Office with a metal detector (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=414369). And in any case if it was found that you were carrying, I suspect they'd do a little enforcing.

..."Get legal"... ok, but when will they stop making more and more laws against us?...
I find it interesting when folks talk about being law abiding (as in "law abiding gun owner") then in the same breath talk about intentionally violating some law they disagree with or find inconvenient. Breaking news: once you violate a law, especially knowingly and intentionally, you are no longer law abiding.

Sam1911
December 22, 2008, 08:40 PM
As of 1 Jan, state laws dictate carry policies for national parks.

But, remember, federal BUILDINGS on park property -- which includes all visitors' centers and such -- will STILL be off limits. You're good on the grounds, NOT in the buildings.

And then there are supposedly going to be some "National Icons" like the Statue of Liberty, which will simply be off limits regardless. But I've yet to find a list of them or an explanation of how they'll be posted as such.

-Sam

mljdeckard
December 22, 2008, 08:57 PM
My sister worked in the visitor's center of a National Park. I have no reason to enter one.

45ACPUSER
December 22, 2008, 09:13 PM
The instructor in our CCW class said the PO was not technically Federal property so carry is allowed.

I would like to know which MN Permit to Carry Instructor said that so that I can avoid their classes in the future.

trickshot
December 22, 2008, 09:17 PM
Post Office
Social Security Office
National Parks (unless stated otherwise)
Courthouses (local or federal)
Clerk's Offices (local or federal)
Schools
Libraries

County courthouse?
Local clerks office?
Libraries?
Is there a federal law prohibiting carrying on local county and city property?
I think this would be whatever the state and local laws are.

AK103K
December 22, 2008, 09:48 PM
Most all of these "rules" have the "any other lawful purpose" clause, usually listed last in the rules. (18 U.S.C. 930 - (d)(3) )

I agree with Olympus with this...." However, if you carry a concealed weapon, with a valid concealed weapons permit, and you are not intending to commit any crimes therein, you should be well within the meaning of “lawful purposes.” "

If you read most all the laws or rules that effect this type of thing, you will most always find the above clause in them. Most people dont ever read the law or rule, to even know what it says. This goes for anything. Those scary signs seem to have so much more power than the "real" law.



Jason,

You neglected to highlight the part that is relevant, so I did it for you here....

From 39 CFR section 232.1 paragraph 5 part L:

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person
while on postal property may carry
firearms, other dangerous or deadly
weapons, or explosives, either openly
or concealed, or store the same on
postal property, except for official purposes

If I'm in the post office on "official business" with the post office, i.e., buying a stamp, what purpose other than "official" would my purpose be there?


Again, the BIGGEST problem is, people are to lazy to actually read the laws quoted. The big scary, threatening sign is usually all that is needed to keep the masses in check. What is scary is, people who are supposed to know the laws and rules, often have even less understanding of what they are "enforcing". All the clerk at the window knows is, that scary sign over there says NO WAY, and dont even try to get them to actually read and understand what the little words at the bottom mean.

Whats wrong with you!!?? Why wont you do what the sign says!?!? You must be a trouble maker! Dont ask questions or bring up facts, just DO AS YOUR TOLD!

From many of the replies here, it seems to be working very well. If you dont constantly question and challenge "authority", then you're the one giving up your rights willingly, and encouraging them to be your master.

Frank Ettin
December 22, 2008, 10:05 PM
...If I'm in the post office on "official business" with the post office, i.e., buying a stamp, what purpose other than "official" would my purpose be there?...
Nope, that's not what the word "official" means.

"Function:
adjective
...
1: of or relating to an office, position, or trust <official duties>
2: holding an office
3 a: authoritative , authorized <official statement>
b: prescribed or recognized as authorized <an official language> c: described by the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary
4: befitting or characteristic of a person in office <extended an official greeting>"
(Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary)

So unless you're something like an armed postal inspector on a cop, you're out of luck.

...Again, the BIGGEST problem is, people are to lazy to actually read the laws quoted....
No, the biggest problem is people who are too lazy to read the laws correctly and understand what they actually say.

But go ahead and carry in the Post Office. It's not my problem.

rfwobbly
December 22, 2008, 10:26 PM
Wow! What a response!

I'm going to stick with the "straight arrow" way and NOT carry in the PO or parking lot. Guess this means the long way home from work (via the PO). Thanks for all the input.

PcolaDawg
December 22, 2008, 10:30 PM
In FLORIDA, you can carry a concealed weapon in a bank. It is other financial institutions where you cannot carry concealed. The banks were specified as separate under FLORIDA law.
Interesting, 'cause I was specifically taught, by a police officer in charge of community relations, that it was illegal in Florida to carry a concealed weapon into a bank.

I'll have to check into that. I think it would be foolish to not allow CCW in a bank, but foolishness has never stopped lawmakers before.

MostlyHarmless
December 23, 2008, 12:35 AM
The unsettled legal issue at hand is whether 39 CFR 232.1 falls within the statutory authority in 18 USC 930. There are those who maintain that the "other lawful purposes" clause in 18 USC 930 implicitly permits carry and governs. The post office does not agree. It would be an expensive battle to win and an even more expensive battle to lose, and the post office appears to be spoiling for a fight.

Is it lawful in the sense of being something that an individual who takes the high road would do? Hmmm.

Dienekes
December 23, 2008, 03:23 AM
As I recall, after having read the discussion on the subject some time back plus reading the statute, "other lawful purposes" seems to cover the topic.

I used to have to wade through a lot of regulatory, interpretive, and generally legalistic BS in my day job, so that phrase seems downright clear in comparison with most. I suspect that many people would like to keep the issue fairly muddled.

Easier to keep the herd under control when you get them milling around...

BTW I had to go to the courthouse to pay my property taxes today. In that case matters are clear and I left my friend in the car.

With government as intrusive and all-pervading as it is today, it's hard to get though the day without becoming a public enemy.

Jason M
December 23, 2008, 10:01 AM
Quote:
Post Office
Social Security Office
National Parks (unless stated otherwise)
Courthouses (local or federal)
Clerk's Offices (local or federal)
Schools
Libraries

County courthouse?
Local clerks office?
Libraries?
Is there a federal law prohibiting carrying on local county and city property?
I think this would be whatever the state and local laws are.


Sorry for the confusion. I was just making ageneral list, not a list of only federal properties. And yes, for county and city property the law on that matter would be dictated by that local government's law. But I was just mkaing th point you can't carry anywhere you damn well please.

Some CCW holders seem to forget that once they get their permit of "invincibility". :rolleyes:

Quote:
Be ashamed of yourself and get legal. -Jason M

I'm sure that is exactly what our founding fathers said to each other when referring to the stringent regulations brought forth by the English aristocracy...


Give me a break. The times we live in now are thinly iced at best. Certainly there needs to be proponents for less restrictions on firearms possession and purchase for LAW ABIDING citizens, but we don't want what we have now to be revoked or severely limited. I am just saying one needs to be responsible. It really is simple.

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 10:32 AM
The post office does not agree. It would be an expensive battle to win and an even more expensive battle to lose, and the post office appears to be spoiling for a fight.

I'm sure if you were arrested for this and made a big enough fuss, you could get some really good advocacy from support groups and a decent lawyer to pick the case up pro-bono. An appeal to the NRA wouldn't hurt any either. So I think you put a little effort into it, you wouldn't be out too much money. And if you lost, look at the subsection outlining consequences. It says you can be fined no lower than $50 and jailed no more than 30 days but no combination of the two. Depending on the circumstances and barring that the person hasn't been in any kind of trouble before, I'd expect a fine instead of jail and I doubt it would be a real heavy fine at that.

Jason M
December 23, 2008, 11:33 AM
It says you can be fined no lower than $50 and jailed no more than 30 days but no combination of the two. Depending on the circumstances and barring that the person hasn't been in any kind of trouble before, I'd expect a fine instead of jail and I doubt it would be a real heavy fine at that.

I think you need to look again.

A weapon offense on/in federal property is up to 1 year in prison and a weapon offense in a federal courthouse is up to 2 years in prison.

Website Found (http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/shared_files/titles/18_usc_930.htm)

18 USC Sec. 930
01/26/98

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS



HEADING

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities



STATUTE

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills or attempts to kill any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(e)(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term ''Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(2) The term ''dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.

(3) The term ''Federal court facility'' means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.



SOURCE

(Added Pub. L. 100-690, title VI, Sec. 6215(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101-647, title XXII, Sec. 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 103-322, title VI, Sec. 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec. 603(t), (u), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506.)



MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENTS

1996 - Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(t), substituted ''subsection (d)'' for ''subsection (c)''.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(u)(1), redesignated subsec. (g), related to posting notice in Federal facilities, as (h).
Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(u)(2), substituted ''(e)'' for ''(d)'' wherever appearing.
Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(u)(1), redesignated subsec. (g), related to posting notice in Federal facilities, as (h).

1994 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 60014(2), substituted ''(d)'' for ''(c)''.
Subsecs. (c) to (g). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 60014(1), (3), added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsecs. (c) to (f) as (d) to (g), respectively.

1990 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(1), inserted ''(other than a Federal court facility)'' after ''Federal facility''.
Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(2), (3), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (e). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (f).
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(2), redesignated subsec. (e) as (f). Former subsec. (f) redesignated (g).
Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(4), added par. (3).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(5), inserted ''and notice of subsection (d) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility,'' after ''each Federal facility,'', ''or (d)'' before ''with respect to'', and ''or (d), as the case may be'' before the period.
Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(2), redesignated subsec. (f) as (g).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1990 AMENDMENT

Section 2205(b) of Pub. L. 101-647 provided that: ''The amendments made by subsection (a) (amending this section) shall apply to conduct engaged in after the date of the enactment of this Act (Nov. 29, 1990).''



SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 2332b, 2339A of this
title


I bolded the points of the topic. The fine is not specified, so it could be $50 or $500,000. It is discretionary.

Google is your friend, speculation is not worth imprisonment.

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 11:42 AM
JasonM...we've already establised that 39 CFR section 232.1 takes precedence over 18 USC Sec. 930. If you read the first part of section A that you posted it says "Except as provided in subsection (d)..." Subsection d part 3 is where you'll find the "other lawful purposes" phrase that everyone is having a hard time with. If it were not for 39 CFR 232.1, subsection d3 would allow carrying a concealed weapon into a post office as long as the person was legal and carrying for a lawful purpose. But 39 CFR 232.1 is what some are saying trumps 18 USC 930. And if you read the consequences of 39 CFR 232.1 it will tell you exactly what I said.

Google is my friend...you just have to know what you're talking about beforehand.

MAKster
December 23, 2008, 11:55 AM
If carrying with a permit was an "other lawful purpose" than it would be legal to carry in any Federal facitlity other than a courthouse. Do the people who think it is legal to carry in a post office also think it is legal to carry in other federal buildings?

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 11:58 AM
That's what we're discussing. It seems that post offices are special because of 39 CFR 232.1. But other than a federal court, I believe the "other lawful purpose" grants the right to conceal correctly in other federal building. The jury is still out on post offices though.

Frank Ettin
December 23, 2008, 12:19 PM
I'm sure if you were arrested for this and made a big enough fuss, you could get some really good advocacy from support groups and a decent lawyer to pick the case up pro-bono. ... Depending on the circumstances and barring that the person hasn't been in any kind of trouble before, I'd expect a fine instead of jail and I doubt it would be a real heavy fine at that.
You seem to be suggesting that one of us take the hit and be the test case. How nice of you.

But if you're so sure, why don't YOU try it out? Go for it. We'll be rooting for you.

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 12:26 PM
I'm sure you would be. But I've been boycotting the postal service for the last couple of years. I had more bad experiences with the postal service than I can count on both hands. The most recent being someone with dyslexia getting my house number reverse and mailing the title to my new car to someone else. It may just be the area that I live, but it seems like you have to be incompetent to get a job there. There's not much I can do with my boycott though. I refuse to buy stamps and pay everything online and I try to use DHL if I need something shipped....but this is another story.

I wasn't suggesting that someone try it though. It's apparent by the postings that people do carry weapons into post offices and I was just giving some ideas....purely educational.

Boba Fett
December 23, 2008, 12:28 PM
I haven't read all the other posts, so this may have already been said.

If you have a question about something, do two things:
1) read the laws as they pertain to the state you are carrying in.
2) IF YOU ARE UNSURE, CONTACT YOUR LOCAL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (or whichever department handles CCW licensing in your state). They can answer your questions down to what the definition of a word is.

It is OK to ask questions and get advice from forums, but remember that when it comes to legal questions, you need to get your information from the right sources (i.e. the same sources that will throw your butt in the slammer or take your CCW license if you screw up).


Check out this link (http://www.carryconcealed.net/legal)...click on the state you live in, and on the left hand side down just a bit will be a link to your state's official stance on CCW. Find a number or email and get your info from the source.

zxcvbob
December 23, 2008, 12:38 PM
As you can see in (d)(3), it is lawful to carry a firearm into a Federal facility incident to hunting or “other lawful purposes.” Just what are “other lawful purposes” though? If you carry a gun into a Federal facility with the intent to commit a crime therein, then it would seem pretty obvious that you are not engaged in “lawful purposes.” However, if you carry a concealed weapon, with a valid concealed weapons permit, and you are not intending to commit any crimes therein, you should be well within the meaning of “lawful purposes.”

I agree with Olympus on this. I also have no intention of spending my life savings to challenge this gray area in court (and likely lose.)

Things aren't nearly bad enough yet to just ignore the laws. (don't worry, they will get that bad eventually ;)

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 12:39 PM
I agree. But I think you should ask the right person. A lot of LEOs don't fully understand the laws concerning CCW or even OC for that matter. You should ask someone who has had proper training in that area. Even a call to a prosecutors office couldn't hurt.

mpmarty
December 23, 2008, 01:06 PM
Well it's pretty simple here in rural Oregon:
1. Post Office
The postmaster shoots IPSC with me and we both carry ccw in the postoffice. He while working, me when I go in to buy stamps. He knows and says the subsection "c" or some such thing clears me legally and nobody around here would dare make a case out of it anyway.

2. Court house (Circuit Court of Oregon in and for the county of Douglas)
Carrying of concealed weapons is prohibited on the east side of the building by the presiding judge at the discretion of said presiding judge. The east side is where the court rooms are along with the court clerks office. The "other side" of the building houses the sheriffs office, jail, cafeteria, assessors office, and other stuff.

We have no federal court buildings in our county. Open carry is legal, concealed carry is mandated as "shall issue" except for mental / criminal disqualification. A rifle or shotgun by definition cannot be considered a concealed weapon. Switchblade knives, of any size are legal in Oregon also.:neener:

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 01:10 PM
The postmaster shoots IPSC with me and we both carry ccw in the postoffice. He while working, me when I go in to buy stamps.

:what: You can't beat that!

MAKster
December 23, 2008, 01:45 PM
This is purely a federal matter and state law or the attitudes of local police is irrelevant.

Jason M
December 23, 2008, 02:49 PM
But 39 CFR 232.1 is what some are saying trumps 18 USC 930. And if you read the consequences of 39 CFR 232.1 it will tell you exactly what I said.


Well, it appears everyone is speculating, then. Unless you have solid written proof that one trumps the other, then you could assume penalty from either. So, it still appears ambiguous.

Frank Ettin
December 23, 2008, 03:15 PM
And it looks like we're still short of volunteers to put it to the test. I'm sure not going to do it. I can see a judge ruling that the prohibition of 39 CFR 232.1 negates the "lawful purpose" language of 18 USC 930. A judge could easily conclude that since carrying a gun in a Post Office is prohibited under 39 CFR 232.1, one can't be carrying it "for other lawful purposes" for the purposes of 930.

But I guess we'll need to wait for a case to come down. I'm kind of surprised that no one who insist it's no problem seems anxious to put it to the test himself.

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 04:43 PM
Well, it appears everyone is speculating, then. Unless you have solid written proof that one trumps the other, then you could assume penalty from either. So, it still appears ambiguous.

Well you can see from what fiddletown said that if a judge rules that 39 CFR 232.1 supercedes 930 then you're looking at penalties as defined in 232.1 which were what I said earlier, $50 fine minimum or 30 days in jail maximum but no combination. If 232.1 does not supercede 930 then it will be a close call on the meaning of "for other lawful purposes" in which I'd lean more towards being legal grounds for carrying, but who knows.

I'm kind of surprised that no one who insist it's no problem seems anxious to put it to the test himself.

It looks like a previous poster has already admitted that he carries in the post office regularly without problem. Maybe you should ask him to be your test subject?

Ron-Bon
December 23, 2008, 04:56 PM
How the heck can anyone up here reccomend violating the law???!!! Are you all insane???!!!

Olympus
December 23, 2008, 05:41 PM
I wonder if this thread would have been better posted in the "Legal" section? A little late now I guess...

Erik
December 23, 2008, 06:14 PM
I interact with Postal Inspectors on occassion and have put the question to them before. It is a felony. Which is how the policy, regulation, and law reads, so long as someoen is not trying to read too uch into it.

zoom6zoom
December 23, 2008, 06:22 PM
As of 1 Jan, state laws dictate carry policies for national parks.
January 9th, actually.

MostlyHarmless
December 23, 2008, 07:09 PM
Well you can see from what fiddletown said that if a judge rules that 39 CFR 232.1 supercedes 930 then you're looking at penalties as defined in 232.1 which were what I said earlier, $50 fine minimum or 30 days in jail maximum but no combination. If 232.1 does not supercede 930 then it will be a close call on the meaning of "for other lawful purposes" in which I'd lean more towards being legal grounds for carrying, but who knows.
That's not the question. Regulations issued that exceed statutory authority are not enforced by the courts. The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) contains rules issued by the executive branch. The USC (U.S. Code) contains the laws passed by the house and senate and, generally, signed by the president. The postal service cannot legislate. It can only issue regulations within the scope of the authority granted to it by congress.

The legal question is whether "other lawful purposes" includes defensive carry. Opinions are divided.

The post office in general, and the postal inspection service in particular, choose to believe that it is a federal offense to carry for defensive reasons in a post office.

Frank Ettin
December 23, 2008, 07:18 PM
...It can only issue regulations within the scope of the authority granted to it by congress...
True, but Congress has granted the USPS broad authority to adopt regulations (39 USC 401).

stolivar
December 23, 2008, 09:21 PM
For a Postal worker having a gun in their car on Postal Property. They are being tried in a Federal court for having a gun on Federal Postal Property.

End of Discussion


steve the mailman


steve

HIcarry
December 23, 2008, 10:18 PM
From 39 CFR section 232.1 paragraph 5 part L:

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person
while on postal property may carry
firearms, other dangerous or deadly
weapons, or explosives, either openly
or concealed, or store the same on
postal property, except for official purposes

Would an off-duty LEO be exempt? What about an on-duty LEO on his lunch break picking up his mail?
Couldn't a citizen picking up their mail be there for "official purposes?" - I read Fiddletown's post after I posted this, so it's a little clearer, but the questions about the LEOs remain. Thanks.

I don't mean to be facetious in asking, just curious about the interpretation of the term as it seems to be open for some interpretation similar to the "lawful purpose" in 18USC

Rodentman
December 23, 2008, 10:39 PM
My instructor made some reference to the USPS not being part of the Fed Gov't, or it being a private agency or something like that.

I don't believe everything I hear or everything I read. I don't carry in the PO, although I have had a firearm in the car while in the parking lot.

I will contact the instructor and seek clarification.

He also recommends Extreme Shock ammo about which I have heard nothing good.

stolivar
December 24, 2008, 08:16 AM
Off duty or on duty, he is a LEO. no problem.

The Post Office is a independent organization within the Govt. No tax money, it all comes from stamps etc.


steve

LKB3rd
December 24, 2008, 08:53 AM
There is some info that suggests that it is not technically a Federal building, but they seem to claim it is anyway.
If this is true, then the advice that "you might be right, but you'll go broke proving it" might be good advice.

AK103K
December 24, 2008, 11:39 AM
Is it possible, that since there are two differing cites, that one pertains to the area open to the general public, and the other to employees?


If not, why the conflicting cites and how do the courts resolve them?

Olympus
December 24, 2008, 11:51 AM
I think you're talking about something similar to what I said a while back. I still can't find it, but it was something like a guy was carrying in the post office in the area where the mailboxes are and his defense was something like he thought that area was allowed and compared it to the area of airports that people can congregate before going through security and into the terminal. I see it as kind of an atrium at the post office where all the boxes are then there is a seperate door you have to go through from there to go into the place where the people are to buy stamps and do whatever else. I'll still keep trying to find it.

I think I found it: US v. Murray

Here's a link to the poster that is at post offices: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-158.html
Notice how they leave out subsection (d) concerning "other lawful purposes"? But they did include 232.1 though.

AK103K
December 24, 2008, 03:03 PM
They must have updated the signs. The ones I was accustomed to seeing had both cites on them. Since moving a few years back and now having rural delivery, I havent been in a post office in awhile. I had a box for the past 30+ years, but the post office here has very limited hours and no lobby time, so you cant get to your mail if you work.

In those 30+ years, I never once took my gun off when I went in. Two of my previous postmasters (both friends) running very small, one or two people rural post offices where I had a box, both carried daily themselves.


Perhaps the issue here should be getting all laws and rules put into plain english, and written so there is no room for interpretation.(Yea, right! like that'll ever happen) I personally still believe that the "any other lawful purpose" clauses have to be in any of them, else they are not constitutionally lawful. (sort of like they cant ban you from owning machine guns, but the tax is legal) Then again, the constitution and our supposed rights all seem to be more of paper tigers these days, and not what they used to be.

Pat4x4
December 24, 2008, 03:40 PM
All I can say is, After reading this thread who ever is not sure what they are allowed to carry and where will be even more confused..

Here in CA my CCW lets me carry on school grounds, Technically courts(but will be asked to take it back to the car at a minimum),. On my CCW test one of the questions was are you allowed as a CA CCW permit holder to carry in a post office.. the correct answer for that test was.... NO.......... SO I am going to stick with that


On the court house thing.. Some Dipsh*t here local tryed to take his concealed weapon into the local court house(ccw Permit Holder) and was arrested on the spot.. He spent Lots of money defending himself and did indeed get all the charges dropped.. It was a dumb move if you ask me though.... Why would you want to push things???

Frank Ettin
December 24, 2008, 04:07 PM
I think I found it: US v. Murray
I found several cases with that name, but none seem to be what you're looking for.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f226100/226189.htm

http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/533/

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/1999/02/97-7105.htm

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2000Term/99-0303.htm

AK103K
December 24, 2008, 05:19 PM
On the court house thing..
All the courthouses I've been in federal and local, have allowed me to check my gun. I just tell them I have one and want to check it.

The best part about that too is, you dont usually have to wait in line in the cattle chutes, just walk around to the head of the line and ask to see the deputy or marshal at the security booth. You can leave all thats in your pockets they take from you in line, in the box with your gun.

KyJim
December 25, 2008, 01:23 AM
I just wanted to respond to the suggestion that 39 CFR 232.1 might be in excess of the statutory authority of 18 USC 930. The post office regulation was not written pursuant to the authority of 18 USC 930. It lists several statues as the source of it's authority including 18 U.S.C. § 3061 which states, in part:
(4)(A) As to such property, the Postmaster General may prescribe regulations necessary for the protection and administration of property owned or occupied by the Postal Service and persons on the property. The regulations may include reasonable penalties, within the limits prescribed in subparagraph (B), for violations of the regulations. The regulations shall be posted and remain posted in a conspicuous place on the property.

(B) A person violating a regulation prescribed under this subsection shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.


The point is that 18 U.S.C. 3061 grants the Post Office authority to issue regulations "necessary for the protection and adminsitration of property ... and persons on the property." This would include the authority to ban firearms. Thus, even if carry was lawful under 18 USC 930, it would still be unlawful under the regulation. The penalty would not be as stiff, but who wants to spend any time in jail?

toivo
December 25, 2008, 04:24 AM
(l) Weapons and explosives. No person
while on postal property may carry
firearms, other dangerous or deadly
weapons, or explosives, either openly
or concealed, or store the same on
postal property, except for official purposes

TECHNICALLY, it also says you can't leave it in your car, either while you go in.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting that last bit. Are you assuming that the P.O parking lot is also federal property? In my town, the P.O. is in a strip mall, and shares its parking lot with a laundromat and a liquor store. There is a "no guns" sign on the front of the P.O., but I really doubt that the parking lot is federal property.

In the next town, there is a P.O branch in a major shopping mall. You can't really "enter" the P.O. You go along the main concourse of the mall and walk up to a service window. If CCW is legal in the mall, where would they draw the line? Would you have to be physically touching the P.O counter? It gets tricky.

I am not advocating anyone breaking the law. I'm just pointing out that there are many cases where the law isn't clear.

bannockburn
December 25, 2008, 11:22 AM
toivo

To my way of thinking, postal property refers to a basic, stand-alone post office building, along with it's accompanying parking lots (employee and postal vehicle parking lot and customer parking lot). I don't know about these postal sub-stations or kiosks at shopping malls. I was once told by a letter carrier that whenever they delivered to an office or apartment building mailroom, that technically that area was considered to be postal property, as long as the carrier was there delivering the mail. Any regulations governing postal property would likewise apply to that mailroom as well. I don't know if that application is correct or not, but like so many things these days, it could be open to a rather broad interpretation by a Federal judge somewhere. So certainly, like the places you mentioned, there appears to be numerous gray areas when it comes to CCW applications and postal property.

LIQUID SNAKE
December 25, 2008, 11:44 AM
It's not a big deal unless "YOU" make it one.

GEM
December 25, 2008, 01:08 PM
Not to hijack, but this has been discussed for years. Why was not the issue brought up under the reign of supposedly gun friendly George W. Bush for change?

Seriously, I don't remember ever reading about it in the NRA pubs that have plenty of space to complain about other issues.

45ACPUSER
December 25, 2008, 03:40 PM
My instructor made some reference to the USPS not being part of the Fed Gov't, or it being a private agency or something like that.

I don't believe everything I hear or everything I read. I don't carry in the PO, although I have had a firearm in the car while in the parking lot.

I will contact the instructor and seek clarification.

He also recommends Extreme Shock ammo about which I have heard nothing good.:what:

That alone makes me know this guy does not know what the heck he is talking about! He must sell the stuff, when a large LE agency goes with the stuff and has street results let us all know......

45ACPUSER
December 25, 2008, 03:43 PM
What this all comes down to does anyone really want to be the test case? I am confident most people, except the instructor of a fellow MN member PTC class,do not have the $$ resources to undertake such a trial! Let alone loose your rights to keep and bear arms!

krs
December 25, 2008, 04:04 PM
Ever since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 people have operated under the false assumption that the United States Postal Service is not an agency of the U.S. Federal Government simply because of misinterpretation of the intent of that act to force the postal service to make money as would any business. It's really a shame, a dangerous to students shame, to hear of this instructor passing out such ignorant misinformation. He could cause a student considerable grief up to and including imprisonment in a federal prison.

Congress did not free the postal service, it only refused to continue to pay for the postal service in total anymore.

Now there is a careful accounting of all revenues in and out each year and the USPS is expected to run on a breakeven basis. When they go into the black, congress usually finds a justification to take any excess revenues. When they are in the red, congess wants to know why. But no matter which kind of year they have they are not an independent agency, they are a federal agency.

All property owned or leased by the U.S. Postal service is postal property and you are forbidden to have firearms or other dangerous devices as long as you are on their property unless you have official reason otherwise. Official reason does not extend to being licensed to carry a firearm as a private party.

Every single one of the employees of your post office receive a once green, now tan paycheck emblasoned with "United States Treasury" as the payor (or did before the requirement of direct deposit was instituted). It looks just like your tax return check. Take a hint.

Supertac45
December 25, 2008, 06:29 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to post about someone being arrested for legally carrying in a P.O. under Federal Law.

TAB
December 25, 2008, 07:09 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to post about someone being arrested for legally carrying in a P.O. under Federal Law.


I'm still waiting for one of the people that say its legal to go into a post office, take off thier jack and say "look at me, look at me, I have a gun and its legal"

Mr Kablammo
December 26, 2008, 01:27 AM
Do not do it. It is clearly posted at local POs that CCW is not allowed (regardess of state law).

Valkman
December 26, 2008, 02:01 AM
Wow so much misinformation it makes the head spin! We can carry in our PO because the DA says we can. Guess it's not a federal crime?

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 02:15 AM
Your District Attorney is not a federal officer and has no jurisdiction over federal matters. Basically, he doesn't necessarily know. He doesn't prosecute federal crimes. The United States Attorney prosecutes federal crimes. See TAB's post 101. do you want to give it a try?

Serial Crusher
December 26, 2008, 02:21 AM
Many many post offices are in rented or leased buildings, especially those in rural areas, making them private property. Main branches and distribution centers are generally not leased property.

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 02:47 AM
Many many post offices are in rented or leased buildings, especially those in rural areas...
Since the lessee is the USPS, they would still be considered for legal purposes to be USPS property. The lease gives the USPS a possessor interest in the property, called a leasehold, and dominion and control of the property.

MD_Willington
December 26, 2008, 03:01 AM
What gets me is, you can walk in with a long arm and have your local post master ship a firearm for you to a repair facility etc...

My post master has shipped shotguns and rifles before, he doesn't even bat an eye at it, he just wants to inspect it before it goes out.

AK103K
December 26, 2008, 10:41 AM
Since the lessee is the USPS, they would still be considered for legal purposes to be USPS property.
Maybe if your in the big city, its a black and white issue, but out in the country, its often not just that simple. Well, it is, until the city slickers show up. :)

One of my post offices was in a wide spot in the road deli. The post office "proper" was just a room off the store, and the P.O. boxes were behind the tater chip rack in the store. There was no way to really tell where the deli stopped and the post office began. Most people from out of town passing through didnt even know it was there. Many of the rural post offices are, or were like this. From what I've been hearing, the USPS is going through another round of cutting out people and offices.

Even at the post offices where it is stand alone, you drive by this time of year, and every truck in the parking lot has a rifle in the window. Maybe the postal inspectors know better than to push it. :)

Master Blaster
December 26, 2008, 12:42 PM
Do what you need to do, dont compromise your safety.
Dont ask dont tell applies.

Kleanbore
December 26, 2008, 12:53 PM
From MasterBlaster: Do what you need to do, dont compromise your safety. Dont ask dont tell applies.

After you have been convicted of a gun crime, your safety will have been compromised. Gun rights gone...

AK103K
December 26, 2008, 01:36 PM
If your doing everything right, no one will ever know. ;)

Kleanbore
December 26, 2008, 02:05 PM
Curious that people would advocate criminal behavior in the Legal Forum of something called The High Road...

mljdeckard
December 26, 2008, 02:07 PM
On The High Road, we follow the law, period.

AK103K
December 26, 2008, 04:39 PM
Curious that people would advocate criminal behavior in the Legal Forum of something called The High Road...
Are we to suppose your follow every single rule, down to the letter, every single day?


On The High Road, we follow the law, period.
I've been trying to follow this one, but it seems there are many twists and turns and its not easily followed. Perhaps we need a guide and gun bearer. :)

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 05:18 PM
On The High Road, we follow the law, period.

That's about as foolish as claiming to break every rule.

I have no moral qualms with ignoring bad laws.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 26, 2008, 05:23 PM
Carrying a weapon (open or concealed) into a US Post Office is a felony, is it not?

You can hide it all you want, however, someone with IR Binoculars who may be watching you will most likely also see your weapon (unless you have it hidden inside some body cavity).

Kleanbore
December 26, 2008, 05:33 PM
I have no moral qualms with ignoring bad laws.

Moral qualms? How does that subject enter into it? The issues are arrest, charges, indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing, which can involve fines and incarceration. There are also the matters of mounting an extremely expensive legal defense, loss of income, a criminal record that is public, and permanent loss of all gun rights.

But surely you know all of that.

TAB
December 26, 2008, 05:44 PM
I have no moral qualms with ignoring bad laws

wow, just wow.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 05:50 PM
Everyone draws their own lines. We all consider the consequences, but claiming to follow the law simply because it is the law is ridiculous. Taking the high road isn't about following the law. It's about what's doing what is right.

Kleanbore
December 26, 2008, 05:57 PM
Everyone draws their own lines.

After one is indicted, his fate is entirely in the hands of others. Others draw the lines for him.

Some of the most powerful and influential people in the country have learned that lesson. Most of them had "no moral qualms with" their actions.

Nathanael_Greene
December 26, 2008, 06:00 PM
If your [sic] doing everything right, no one will ever know.

Unless the Post Office in question happens to have metal detectors. Some do.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 26, 2008, 06:02 PM
I have no moral qualms with ignoring bad laws

Just who is the "judge" as to whether a law is good or bad?

You?

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:04 PM
Just who is the judge" as to whether a law is good or bad?
You?


Bwahahahahahahaha!

I never made such a claim. However, it's always nice to see people's true beliefs come out. Thank you for that.

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 06:06 PM
...but claiming to follow the law simply because it is the law is ridiculous. Taking the high road isn't about following the law. It's about what's doing what is right.
What twaddle. Here we're talking about taking your gun where it's not wanted. It's less about what's right and more about what's convenient. I'm often amused at the way scofflaws tend to dress their infractions in a cloak of some imagined "higher purpose."

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:08 PM
What twaddle. Here we're talking about taking your gun where it's not wanted. It's less about what's right and more about what's convenient. I'm often amused at the way scofflaws tend to dress their infractions in a cloak of some imagined "higher purpose."

Yawn. My argument has nothing to do with carrying in a post office, as I too choose not to do so (i.e., I follow the law). I'm simply pointing out the fallacy that following the law is somehow synonymous with "high road".

TAB
December 26, 2008, 06:12 PM
So if I feel the laws protecting children from being molested are bad, its ok for me to molest children?

Tell me how my 2a rights are more important then my 1a rights.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:14 PM
So if I feel the laws protecting children from being molested are bad, its ok for me to molest children?

Sorry, I don't respond to logically bankrupt arguments.

TAB
December 26, 2008, 06:16 PM
how is it bankrupt? Its exactly the same, only I'm expressing my 1a rights( that of free expression), not my 2 a rights.

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 06:21 PM
...My argument has nothing to do with carrying in a post office,...
Then why post it in this thread? That's what this thread is about.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:27 PM
With a little thought, I'm confident that you can figure it out on your own. However, since you don't seem to have any desire to actually make an attempt at thinking logically, let's see if I can't spell it out for you.

The statement was made that "On The High Road, we follow the law, period." Now, the weakness in this thinking seems obvious to me; since if it were actually followed, we could be following bad laws.

Now, I never said which laws were bad or discussed the process in which bad laws should be separated from good laws. I merely pointed out that if a law was in fact determined to be bad (by whichever means chosen to make such a determination), it would in fact be "high road" not to follow that law. Naturally, this logic directly contradicts the original statement above, which should be of no surprise to anyone.

It should also be obvious by now that you are trying to argue a completely different point.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:30 PM
Then why post it in this thread? That's what this thread is about.

I should have stated it better, since my argument could be applied to carrying in a post office, it's just that I am approaching the subject from a much broader perspective. Not to mention that I was simply responding to a statement made earlier by another member, so if you are asking me why I am responding, it seems only fair that you would ask the same of others.

Frank Ettin
December 26, 2008, 06:32 PM
...It should also be obvious by now that you are trying to argue a completely different point
So I guess that we can gather that you have nothing constructive to offer on the subject of carrying in a Post Office.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:36 PM
By that measure nothing constructive was added to this thread after the second post. After all, the question was answered in the first response.

Kleanbore
December 26, 2008, 06:44 PM
RE: Fiddletown's post... I'll save everyone from the trouble of looking it up: a scofflaw is defined in Merriam-Webster as a contemptuous law violator. Synonyms include criminal and crook. Antonyms would include law abiding citizen.

One could not reasonably describe anyone who knowingly and willfully breaks a law such as one against carrying a gun where it is prohibited by Federal or state law as a "law abiding citizen." Thus he is something else, regardless of whether he or I considers the law to be "good" or "bad."

The possession and ownership of firearms by anyone who has been adjudged to have committed any state or federal crime with a potential maximum sentence exceeding a certain period is prohibited. That is independent of whether the offender considered the law that he had broken to be good or bad.

For all intents and purposes, the prohibition is permanent.

I should think it reasonable to expect anyone participating on The High Road to abide by the law.

That's no different than saying "On The High Road, we follow the law, period."

If one thinks a law is bad, he can work to change it. Sometimes ("every now and again - not often, but occasionally") civil disobedience may be indicated, but I seriously doubt that the moderators would advocate violating gun laws because someone considers them "bad." I know that I don't.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 06:50 PM
I sure hope for your arguments sake that you don't speed in your car. I think it's only reasonable to expect those participating on the High Road to abide by the law.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
December 26, 2008, 07:06 PM
daniel1113 I sure hope for your arguments sake that you don't speed in your car. I think it's only reasonable to expect those participating on the High Road to abide by the law.

I don't speed at all in my car. I follow all vehicular laws, including coming to a FULL stop at stop signs and before turning right on red. Why do I do these things? Because it is the law, and should I try to show someone or tell them that they should obey the law, then I must do the same, in all areas lest I be judged.

I don't carry in a school zone. Do I think the law is right or wrong? That doesn't matter. It matters not how I feel about the law, the fact is there is a law. Laws are in place for a reason. Without laws there would be anarchy.

daniel1113
December 26, 2008, 07:25 PM
I don't carry in a school zone. Do I think the law is right or wrong? That doesn't matter. It matters not how I feel about the law, the fact is there is a law. Laws are in place for a reason. Without laws there would be anarchy.

I never said there shouldn't be any laws, or that laws have no value, as you seem to imply. However, I do not believe in the premise that a law should be followed for no other reason than it exists, as you seem to believe.

Useless laws weaken the necessary laws. – Montesquieu

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. – Winston Churchill

More laws, less justice. – Marcus Tullius Ciceroca

Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey the laws too well. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. – Edmund Burke

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. – Martin Luther King Jr.

AK103K
December 26, 2008, 07:27 PM
I'm going to have to get a list of THR "Saints" started. :D

EVERYONE breaks some law, somewhere, everyday, even unknowingly. Its impossible not to these days.

herohog
December 26, 2008, 08:16 PM
I can't believe that this thread hasn't been locked yet. It has long since been reduced to people sniping at each other and the applicable laws concerning the subject have long since been posted.

AK103K
December 26, 2008, 08:34 PM
One last question before the lock.

Why the conflicting cites at all? If the one cite is airtight and leaves no question (in some minds anyway), then why the "lesser" cite at all?

At the very least, it just adds confusion. Then again, maybe thats the idea.

ConstitutionCowboy
December 26, 2008, 09:00 PM
I don't have time to read the whole thread, so if it's been mentioned already, .... tough!:neener:

In Oklahoma, I can carry into the post offices up to the point I don't enter any area where I must interact with the Post Office personnel. I cannot carry onto any official Post Office grounds(areas where post office vehicles are kept, loaded, etc.) All these areas are clearly marked(posted) as being firearms restricted.

Entering the "lobby" area where the Post Office boxes, automated stamp machines and mailing slots are is not posted in Oklahoma. You might want to check the rules in your state.

Reading the federal laws governing this shows that the post offices in Oklahoma are in compliance.

My only problem is that I don't go to the Post Office unless I have to interact with the Post Office personnel.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as the right to keep and bear arms is so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

Kleanbore
December 26, 2008, 10:17 PM
EVERYONE breaks some law, somewhere, everyday, even unknowingly. Its impossible not to these days.

The operative words in the determination of criminality, I believe, are knowing and willful.

An attorney for whom I once worked once said "that means you knew what you were doing."

divemedic
December 26, 2008, 10:35 PM
It matters not how I feel about the law, the fact is there is a law. Laws are in place for a reason. Without laws there would be anarchy.

There was a time when it was the law of this country to return all escaped slaves to their owners. I believe there were laws that escaped slaves would be hung. I would advance that law as an example of an unjust law.

When the government disobeys the very laws that the people have empowered it to enforce, you have anarchy. The Supreme law of the land is the COTUS. Any law that is contrary to that is unjust, and illegal. If the Govt ignores the COTUS when passing a law, they are promoting anarchy.

No wise man owes an unjust law

mljdeckard
December 26, 2008, 11:06 PM
Nope. Following the law does not make me or anyone else here weak-minded. You don't like the law, work to get the law changed. This forum cannot afford to have threads about how to get away with stuff.

All of us could pick and choose which laws we think are stupid and ignore them. That doesn't make it right, smart, ethical, or helpful to our cause.

divemedic
December 26, 2008, 11:10 PM
and when you live in a city like NOLA, where the mayor ignores both state law AND a court order to send the police to take your guns, what do you do then? Which do you obey? The court, the state, or the city?

Do you turn your guns in and hope they don't look like this when you finally get them back 3 years later, if at all?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XCkTSf0swcQ/SUUBOWJ1REI/AAAAAAAAEvo/U0j4vHABgEQ/s400/RUSTYHiPOINT743.jpg

mljdeckard
December 26, 2008, 11:12 PM
In New Orleans, the police and the mayor were breaking the law. The armed people were not.

makarovnik
December 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
You can not legally carry a handgun into the post office. All the PO's in my area also have signs posted "no handguns" so you also should obey those signs wherever you see them.

You can of course take a rifle or shotgun into a post office if it is in an unmarked box to be shipped.

7Star
December 27, 2008, 03:06 AM
I see some different ideas about florida here...and I am absolutely certain that in Florida, with a permit to carry, it is LEGAL to carry in a bank and ILLEGAL to carry into a united states post office. I'm not sure about a differentiation beween PO box section and customer service area...I've never read about one here..so I'm assuming there isn't one here.

divemedic
December 27, 2008, 07:08 AM
In New Orleans, the police and the mayor were breaking the law. The armed people were not.

See, that is my point. The Government is breaking the supreme law of the land (COTUS) whenever it passes a gun control law, just like the NOLA Mayor is breaking the law, and just like localities break the law when they pass laws in violation of state preemption laws.

The 2A, which we now recognize as an individual right to own weapons (thanks to Heller) says KEEP AND BEAR arms. It does not say keep only weapons of which the government approves, and even then keep them in your home in an approved method out of the reach of children, and don't bear them in places where the Government doesn't want you to.

I see some different ideas about florida here...and I am absolutely certain that in Florida, with a permit to carry, it is LEGAL to carry in a bank and ILLEGAL to carry into a united states post office.

Correct- Florida: banks OK
Federal Law: Post office not OK. However, when I researched this, I could not find one single case where a person was prosecuted under this law, who was not also prosecuted for another crime connected with this law, such as robbing a post office. This included 39 CFR 232.1 and 18 USC 930.

There are three separate legal issues here: State Law, Federal Law, and Federal Administrative Code. Even if your State allows carry into a PO, there are the Federal Limitations to worry about.

The Federal Law says that you have an exemption if you are carrying incident to "other lawful purposes," but the CFR says that firearms are prohibited on PO property. IMO, not only does that mean the penalties of the CFR are applicable, but this also means that carrying a weapon on PO property is not a "lawful purpose." This would also allow prosecution under USC 930.

The only way that the USC would nullify CFR 232 is if there were a conflict, but I do not see one.

To sum it up: PO carry is illegal, but only a misdemeanor. (Fine plus up to 1 year for USC 930, and $50 fine and up to 30 days for 39 CFR 232.1) Concealed means concealed, and if you use your weapon to stop a felon, the likelihood of jail time is slim. Being a misdemeanor, you won't even lose your guns (except maybe the one you used to defend your life). It is up to the individual to decide if the penalty is worth it. I think this law is unconstitutional, and ignoring it is just as right as ignoring the AWB2 that is coming soon.

Now lets go argue about concealed weapons badges for awhile.

Dashman010
December 27, 2008, 11:46 PM
If this has been posted before, I apologize....but there are a few caveats here with regard to federal law.

Under the GCA of 1968, Sec 930(h) "Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection(a) or (e), as the case may be."

Now, the fact that I've posted this means that I've had actual notice, but for the person who hasn't read this law, if there is no sign, you can't be convicted of possessing a firearm in a post office or other federal facility.

Second, section 930(d)(3) seems to make this an especially gray area. It states "section (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.

Personal protection, as allowed by self defense and concealed carry laws, is a "lawful purpose." Whether a judge would see it that way is the question.

______________________

And I retract my previous statement -- under the language of 39 CFR 232.1, no guns are allowed in postal facilities. The word "notwithstanding" preempts the federal law.

Cyborg
December 28, 2008, 12:30 AM
An Uncle of mine who passed away recently retired from the USPS as Postmaster of Sweetwater, Texas. He once joked with me that he planned to send all his people to the range "to reduce collateral damage". :evil:

He also told me that once while attending some sort of conference in D.C., they were asked what the strangest thing they had ever eaten was. Coming from Sweetwater, home of an annual rattlesnake roundup, he naturally told them he had eaten rattlesnake meat. The session leader and the rest of the people attending made quite a lot of that and gave him a s***load of grief over eating snake meat. Next night they were all taken (on the taxpayers' dime naturally) to some big fancy restaurant. The leader of the seminar the day before ordered "escargot" (snails cooked in garlic and butter IIRC). When my Uncle saw what was on the man's plate he called out very loudly "You're eating SNAILS and you gave ME a hard time over eating rattlesnake??" For the record I've eaten rattlesnake meat a couple of times. It doesn't taste at all like chicken. Makes a good hamburger. Ain't bad in sloppy joes neither.

Cyborg

7Star
December 28, 2008, 10:57 AM
"unless such person had actual notice of subsection(a) or (e), as the case may be." I don't the particulars..but I do know this was covered in my CCCW class and also in the copy of regulations and what not they handed out at the time. I think that covers it for me

Erik
December 28, 2008, 06:57 PM
So... It is a crime, either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the circumstances. And how, pray tell, will the circumstances be interpreted if:

(a) Your carrying is inadvertantly discovered?
(b) You, for what ever reason, have to use your firearm?

I am curious as to the variety of rationals which will emerge.

Frank Ettin
December 28, 2008, 07:13 PM
...And how, pray tell, will the circumstances be interpreted if...
No one can say. A lot may depend on whether the U. S Attorney is in a good mood.

It makes no legal difference whether the fact that you were carrying was discovered inadvertently or if you had to use your gun. At this point, how the matter is pursued is largely and matter of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. So trying to dope out what will happen is simply idle speculation.

solareclipse
December 28, 2008, 10:57 PM
PO here has metal detectors (that always go off when i pass but not because of a piece)..

Apparently a lot of the local population felt they would just carry in anyway... funny thing is when those beep nobody cares

MostlyHarmless
December 29, 2008, 01:38 AM
I believe that this thread must set some sort of record for the degree to which bad advice overwhelms any valid insight that might be gleaned.

The reality is that the post office is pushing the edges of the law by promulgating regulations arguably in excess of its statutory authority. Nonetheless, violations of these regulations are investigated and prosecuted at the federal level with little if any local input (e.g. local sheriff, police, prosecuting attorney). The signs make it clear that they're spoiling for a fight. If you get caught, and get convicted, it's a felony, unless you can get the law overturned on appeal.

If you understand all that and are prepared to be a test case, great. I hope you have your attorney selected, your legal strategy in place, and the support of your family. And then more power to you. I really hope you win.

But it's foolish to violate such regulations casually.

And besides, in this particular case, I think some congressional oversight or executive rulemaking might go farther than a test case. Maybe in four years we'll have elected officials we can work with again and try to get this fixed. Little by little, progress is being made, the recent changes to the national park rules being an example.

divemedic
December 29, 2008, 10:48 AM
If you get caught, and get convicted, it's a felony, unless you can get the law overturned on appeal.

Misdemeanor. The penalty is a fine and up to 1 year in jail.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed carry in a US Post Office ??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!