Concealed carry in a US Post Office ??
- Thread starter rfwobbly
- Start date
- Status
MostlyHarmless
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
- Messages
- 86
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.
True, but Congress has granted the USPS broad authority to adopt regulations (39 USC 401).MostlyHarmless said:
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
Last edited:
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.
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.
Olympus
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,212
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.
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.
Last edited:
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
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.
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.
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???
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???
I found several cases with that name, but none seem to be what you're looking for.Olympus said:
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
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
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.
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:
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?
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
Member
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.
Last edited:
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,312
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.
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
member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 48
It's not a big deal unless "YOU" make it one.
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.
Seriously, I don't remember ever reading about it in the NRA pubs that have plenty of space to complain about other issues.
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.
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......
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
Member
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.
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
Member
I'm still waiting for someone to post about someone being arrested for legally carrying in a P.O. under Federal Law.
- Status
