Concealed carry in a US Post Office ??
- Thread starter rfwobbly
- Start date
- Status
daniel1113
Member
Sorry, I don't respond to logically bankrupt arguments.
Then why post it in this thread? That's what this thread is about.daniel1113 said:
daniel1113
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
So I guess that we can gather that you have nothing constructive to offer on the subject of carrying in a Post Office.daniel1113 said:
daniel1113
Member
By that measure nothing constructive was added to this thread after the second post. After all, the question was answered in the first response.
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.
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
Member
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.
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
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
Member
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.
herohog
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
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.
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
member
I don't have time to read the whole thread, so if it's been mentioned already, .... tough!
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
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
divemedic
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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?
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?
mljdeckard
Member
In New Orleans, the police and the mayor were breaking the law. The armed people were not.
makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
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.
You can of course take a rifle or shotgun into a post office if it is in an unmarked box to be shipped.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Status
