Empty Holster in Post Office?

Which brings up the very old joke

Why are divorces so expensive?

Because the are darn well worth it.

Click to expand...

I always liked "You get what you pay for."


-T.

I'd consider getting arrested for wearing a piece of leather about like winning the lottery

I carry and empty holster into the post office all the time.

You also run the risk of a "disturbing the peace" case if you wear a holster.

At least in the people's republic of Illusionois

Same in KonneKtiKut.

Some of the timidity here is appalling. I carry my empty holster into the Post Office all the time. It is empty because my gun is locked up in the truck. The truck is parked in a parking lot not owned by the Post Office.

What are they going to do?

Really?



Am I worried they might arrest me, they might hurt me, they might use harsh language on me?

No.

Most of the people in the PO are clueless, and droning along in their job. I am in one local office every week to mail packages related to my business, and the Post Mistress, who usually serves me, still doesn't even recognize my face! Besides, she is too short to see over the counter.

So what if someone else yells out in horror that I have a (GASP!) holster! That's right, I do have a holster. There is no gun in it, and there is no gun in sight. There is no gun out of sight either if someone wants to search me. They are not going to search my truck because I am not breaking any laws.

I OC all over the place and most people don't even notice the holster when there is a GUN in it! I'm not going to worry about what some POed PO worker might say if they see an empty holster.

PO Carry

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

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

(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.
(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.

If PO's are considered Federal Property, Title 18 seems to be in conflict with Title 39 (?) But I wouldn't want to be the "test" case...

Empty holster

As an afterthougt, As a retired LEO, I would be qualified under LEOSA to carry anywhere in the US. But, I still don't carry on federal property, and avoid those other places where local ignorance might result in arrest even though I would be legally ok under federal law.

If PO's are considered Federal Property, Title 18 seems to be in conflict with Title 39 (?) But I wouldn't want to be the "test" case...

Click to expand...

It's 39 CFR 232.1 (L) to be exact.

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.

Click to expand...

Then you get into what an official purpose is. Is it legal to carry a gun into a post office inside a box to mail it?

Is it legal to pick up your mail at a post office if there's a gun in a box being shipped to you?

Stupidity abounds.....

Mountie855 said:

If PO's are considered Federal Property, Title 18 seems to be in conflict with Title 39 (?) But I wouldn't want to be the "test" case...

Click to expand...

Title 39 IS in conflict with Title 18. Except it isn't. Title 39 specifically says Title 18 does not apply to postal facilities. And Title 39 does not have an exemption for "lawful purposes."

Empty Holster

I stand corrected! Shame on me for not READING Title 39 completely!

Thanks for setting me straight.

Now I'm really glad I don't carry on federal property!

Sure hope I never have reason to expose myself while in a PO but I never wear an empty xept while at work. I avoid those prohibited places. I do not count the PO as one.

Use UPS or DHL, and buy stamps at the grocery store. I haven't been in a post office in a couple of years. They are slow and lazy (inside the PO). I feel sorry for the carriers b/c everyone in the post office always makes them look bad. The PO is Almost unneccesary nowadays.

Side note. There is no open carry in Oklahoma. If it were an option I do not think I would go that route (I fear I would lose the element of surprise)

Hey, why worry about an empty holster? Concealed is concealed.

Hey, why worry about an empty holster? Concealed is concealed.

Click to expand...

so your willing to commit a federal felony?

Hey, I've been told a LOT lately, mainly by folks from Texas and Florida, that all that matters is that it's concealed... And they seem to be in the majority.

Doesn't matter that most of the folks don't remember back 15-20 years ago, BEFORE their states had shall-issue permits, and how much hassle it was to get that.

So they've got cavalier attitudes about it all.

Well, we just did that whole concealed carry thang here in Missouri a few years ago. Up until I got edumacated by these Texans, I thought that gun control was something you had to work against, not something you just sorta smirked and sidled around the side of... Damn, if I'd only known that a few years back, I wouldn't have given as much money to our local concealed carry folks - I coulda just told myself that "concealed is concealed" and been all happy.

Yes. I'm pissed. I'm highly irritated. And I am rather righteous in my indignation. In a non-scientific THR poll, we have almost 43% of our members who see NOTHING wrong with spending their hard-earned money in an establishment that promotes gun control.

Primarily, it seems, because "concealed is concealed."

So, tell me. Is gun control bad? Or should I just look at things like "Hey, can I get away with it? After all, concealed is concealed."

Also, it should be "you're." If you are going to criticize, please do so with style.

nice way to dodge the question.

if your willing to break the law, that is your choice, just don't thump the 2nd ammendment and call your self righteous.

if your willing to break the law, that is your choice, just don't thump the 2nd ammendment and call your self righteous.

Click to expand...

Dude!! Who's side are you on anyway??


-T.

Hey, I'm not gonna carry into a post office. But all these folks keep telling me that "concealed is concealed" and that they're not worried about no anti-gun folks... Hey, I just have to figure that it must be good advice.

After all, I'm just an ol' boy who grew up in Kentucky... Never was privileged enough to get born in magical Texas, where everything must be nothing but cheetos and TV...

you really missed my point in that thread. It was not about some one using a gun in SD, or even the act of SD. It was about "breaking the rules, and not facing the consequences".

Doesn't matter that most of the folks don't remember back 15-20 years ago, BEFORE their states had shall-issue permits, and how much hassle it was to get that.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, Bogie, you miss the point. It's not a matter of what most folks do or don't remember or how things used to be or will be next year.

The point is that you're trying to tell gun owners about a need for them to work for their rights. But they know that you're wrong: they did not have to work for them in the past, they don't have to work for them now, and so they see no need to work for them in the future.

Other people did the work for them, other people are still doing the work, and therefore other people should continue to do the work. You're banging your head against the wall for no purpose at all. It's impossible to change them. They think you're crazy for not seeing the same reality they do. Life as they know it is dependancy.

Face it: what you're looking at without recognizing it are gun rights welfare cases.

Those people are so used to getting handouts that they're sure it's the way things are supposed to happen. Like other chronically dependant cases they are openly critical of the people who carry them on their backs and bitterly resentful about not getting enough.

There's an estimated 80 million gun owners in the United States and only about 4 million belong to the NRA. That's 5% of the gun owners carrying the other 95%. And the 95% who are being carried by us just hate it when they're told they are parasites. In their own minds they aren't. They are absolutely sure that they deserve even more. That's the way people think who expect something for nothing and consider it their right.

And that's the background to threads like this one. Because the overwhelming number of gun owners do nothing at all--except whine, moan, and complain about how they don't get enough of what they want--we all experience the death of a thousand cuts. And they blame us.

That's good, really, because all they want is someone else to blame.

(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.

If PO's are considered Federal Property, Title 18 seems to be in conflict with Title 39 (?) But I wouldn't want to be the "test" case...

Click to expand...

What this means is that they cannot prosecute and sentence you under Title 18. However, title 39 stands alone and by itself, it has it's own method of enforcement, trial and sentancing contained in the last few paragraphs, including giving postal workers the ability to enfore title 39 (and, BTW, read all of Title 39, you can't have a beer and then go into the post office either!):

(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules
and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are
imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate
in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such
rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region
involved.
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and
regulations in this section while on property under the charge and
control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or
imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in
these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other
Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations
applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
(q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security
force shall exercise the powers of special policemen provided by 40
U.S.C. 318 and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in
this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property. (2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40
U.S.C. 318b and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his
designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement
agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a
manner that will protect Postal Service property.
(3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal
Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal
Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.

Would a person get in trouble if caught with an empty holster in the Post Office?

Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. At least not rightfully. You can go in and ship a holster. So what's the difference between wearing it before shipping or holding it in your hands? It's not a weapon; not illegal.

Why would you want to wear an empty holster anywhere?

Click to expand...

Because if it's a belt-slide, not a paddle, it's a royal pain in the rear to take it off the belt. Much easier to just throw the gun in the glove box and run in. Reverse process when come out and you're on your way, armed again. Open carry or concealed matters not.