Can Feds bar handguns on all Post Office Property?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bushmaster1313

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
3,653
Location
Peoples Republik of New Jersey
Except for an FFL shipping pursuant to regulation, it is a heap big no-no (technical legal term for a felony) to have a handgun anywhere and in any fashion on Post Office property, even in the parking lot.

I understand that Heller still allows restriction of guns in Court Houses, but assuming there is a right to bear arms outside the home, is it Constitutional to prohibit a State permit holder's unloaded handgun locked in the trunk of a car in a Post Office parking lot?
 
I believe one can have a handgun on PO property for 'other legal purposes' or something like that.

Wanna be a test case?? No one seems to want to be the one.
 
Negative. Federal property, federal crime. Don't take guns on PO property, neither on your person or in your vehicle.
 
I was reading through some of the documents on that link and found this from a motion to dismiss rather hilarious:

Plaintiffs‘ claims are foreclosed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In Heller, the Court explained that ―laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places‖ are ―presumptively lawful.‖ Id. at 626-27. Postal property, including the inside of post office buildings, parking lots, and other property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, is a ―sensitive place,‖ and therefore, the regulation at issue is presumptively lawful.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Their argument is that the parking lot of a post office is a sensitive place in which firearms need to be regulated?
 
Unless you want to be a test case, you should care a lot less about whether it's constitutional, and a lot more about what the USPO decided its own rules are.

If you just want to know whether it's constitutional or not, nobody knows. I would submit that in the public areas of the post office it is not. Truly "sensitive" places (airports, courthouses, and sensitive government buildings) have a particularly common thread among them: the government manifests its concern for the sensitivity of the place in question by providing weapons screening and/or armed security.

Frankly, I don't know why this isn't the "sensitive place" test. Asserting that the public areas of the post office are "sensitive" is almost frivolous.
 
Laws make it clear thazt the owner of property can decide who can and cannot carry on their property. If the Feds want to forbid it on Postal Properrty etc. I guess they can.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2
 
Given that postal regulations specifically allow for shipment of firearms including handguns, it would be hard to argue that mere presence on the property is illegal. Obviously one cannot ship a firearm via the PO without bringing it there to do so.

Whether one can have one on the premises for self defense purposes is something different.

Federal law and federal regulations often intertwine in ways that are difficult to understand.
 
Given that postal regulations specifically allow for shipment of firearms including handguns, it would be hard to argue that mere presence on the property is illegal. Obviously one cannot ship a firearm via the PO without bringing it there to do so.
Click to expand...

Only FFLs are permitted to ship handguns USPS.
 
bushmaster1313 said:
Except for an FFL shipping pursuant to regulation, it is a heap big no-no (technical legal term for a felony) to have a handgun anywhere and in any fashion on Post Office property, even in the parking lot.
Click to expand...

It is not a felony to merely possess a firearm on Post Office property. It is an infraction that could get you 30 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. 39 CFR 232.1:

Title 39: Postal Service
PART 232—CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to—

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(l) Weapons and explosives . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.

(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 a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 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 or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

18 USC 3571:

18 USC § 3571 - Sentence of fine
(a) In General.— A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.
(b) Fines for Individuals.— Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—
(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;
(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;
(3) for a felony, not more than $250,000;
(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $250,000;
(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;
(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or
(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.
 
oneounceload said:
True, but us "regular" folks can ship other firearms via USPS

If you are shipping a firearm, it is not an issue; if you are carrying on your person, it is jail time
Click to expand...
Really? Can you point out that exception in the regulation?
39 CFR 232.1
(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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...

Picking up my mail, or mailing packages (without firearms) is "official purposes" just like mailing packages with firearms.

Lets not try to split hairs on what 'carry' means. You have to carry the firearm into the post office in order to mail it. Absent a specific definition in the code, we must rely on the common definition of carry:

CARRY
verb (carries, carrying, carried)
[with object]
1 support and move (someone or something) from one place to another:
medics were carrying a wounded man on a stretcher

transport, conduct or transmit:
the train service carries 20,000 passengers daily

have on one’s person:
he was killed for the money he was carrying
Click to expand...
 
brboyer said:
Really? Can you point out that exception in the regulation?
39 CFR 232.1


Picking up my mail, or mailing packages (without firearms) is "official purposes" just like mailing packages with firearms.
Click to expand...

The official purpose exception in the Federal Regulation refers to possessing the firearm for an official purpose, not merely visiting the Post Office for an "official purpose."

A Law Enforcement Officer while on duty is carrrying their firearm for the official purpose of performing their duties.

A military person, on duty, carrying their issued firearm is carrying their firearm for the official purpose of performing their duties (although they should never be visiting a post office off base carrying their issued firearm).

A person possessing an unloaded firearm, packaged for mailing, if they are lawfully able to mail that firearm, are carrying the firearm for the official purpose of mailing it.

Joe Civilian, buying stamps at the post office has no official purpose associated with carrying a loaded handgun in a holster on their belt.

The definition of carry has nothing to do with the Post Office regulation because it also prohibits the storage of firearms anywhere on Post Office property. If you ain't carrying the gun, then you are storing it.
 
NMPOPS said:
Laws make it clear thazt the owner of property can decide who can and cannot carry on their property.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. In general, private entities may do so, subject to any statutes that might constrain their discretion (e. g., in Florida an employer can't fire an employee for having a legally owned gun locked in his car on company property).

On the other hand, federal, state and local governments are constrained by the Constitution.

archigos said:
Federal agencies are exempt from the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Nope, the actions of federal agencies are constrained by the Constitution, insofar as applicable.

BUT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING ---

Constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation. But at this point we have no good idea how far the courts will allow federal agencies to go in limiting the carrying of weapons on federal property.

Of course, any such limitations will need to pass at least Intermediate Scrutiny. But governmental agencies will get their chances in court to make their cases that their limitations pass the test.

If anyone has the money, time and inclination to test things in court, have at it. The courts are open for business.
 
ec4321 said:
Frank Ettin said:
If anyone has the money, time and inclination to test things in court, have at it. The courts are open for business.
Click to expand...
Doesn't one have to have a standing to do so?
Click to expand...
Of course. But the way these things work is that once someone has the money, time and inclination to challenge a law, he finds a way to get standing.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Of course. But the way these things work is that once someone has the money, time and inclination to challenge a law, he finds a way to get standing.
Click to expand...

Isn't it common for the government to drop the charges which constitute the standing, if the government knows the the challenge has a chance and they would rather abuse what they know to be a questionable law to beat people with rather than risk a binding ruling on the matter?
 
I haven't really given a lot of thought to how to establish standing for this particular challenge. The way this sort of thing is done, someone (or more likely some group) decides they want to mount the challenge. They then find a lawyer and work with the lawyer to figure out a strategy, including getting standing.
 
ec4321 said:
Is it? To challenge the rule/law prohibiting weapons on USPS property?

Wouldn't you have to charged to have a standing?
Click to expand...
No. The Seattle gun ban in parks and facilities was defeated in court by a group of people who were never charged with violating it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010154649_webgunban28m.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...Seattles-gun-ban-at-city-parks-141953933.html

However, the Seattle gun ban case was much easier to win, because there was a specific state law making the city's actions illegal.
 
We're going to find out: Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al: http://archive.recapthelaw.org/cod/122068/
__________________
Click to expand...

This is a two part test case.

First the reviewing court must decide if the 2nd amendment applies outside the home. (i.e., what is the right to BEAR arms)

If yes, the court will need to decide if the Post Office is a sensitive enough place such that the right can be abrogated.

Two step test cases are not as good as a pure test case.

Heller first needed to decide if there was an individual right and then if it applied to handguns.
 
There exists no ban on the carry of guns outside the home in CO. I don't see the need to test the "bear" arms issue.

The plaintiffs have an excellent argument regarding sensitive places. There is already a secured area and an unsecured area. It defies logic that I can carry into the airport up to the secure area, yet I can't carry into the public areas of a post office, including the public parking lot.
 
Last edited:
NMPOPS said:
Laws make it clear thazt the owner of property can decide who can and cannot carry on their property. If the Feds want to forbid it on Postal Properrty etc. I guess they can.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Umm, don't WE own that property?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Ammo in U.S. Postal Office parking lot?
Replies
14
Views
1K
HorseSoldier
H
arcticap
  • Locked
Post Office Property & Fed. Gun Laws?
Replies
12
Views
738
secamp32
S
M
  • Locked
Federal Appeals Court Mull Guns in Post Offices
Replies
4
Views
806
tmoore912
T
W
  • Locked
Firearms on Post Office Property Question
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
AK103K
AK103K
M
  • Locked
Can you take your gun to school?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
SMMAssociates
S
Back
Top