Firearms on Post Office Property Question

[Wyatt]

I know there was a recent court ruling that came down on the side of the federal government that prohibits firearms not only inside the post office building, but anywhere on federal property, including vehicles. I'm curious if anyone knows if 18 U.S.C. Section 930 is the only law that addresses firearms on postal office property?

 

[MICHAEL T]

And post office going to enforce that. How?

 

[Grumulkin]

I know there was a recent court ruling that came down on the side of the federal government that prohibits firearms not only inside the post office building, but anywhere on federal property, including vehicles. I'm curious if anyone knows if 18 U.S.C. Section 930 is the only law that addresses firearms on postal office property?

There is no prohibition of firearms on U. S. Postal Service property only of LOADED firearms.

 

[Wyatt]

There is no prohibition of firearms on U. S. Postal Service property only of LOADED firearms.

Is that based on your reading of 18 U.S.C. 930 or another law? The way I read section 930, firearms whether loaded or unloaded are prohibited.

 

[Grumulkin]

Well, you are allowed to ship firearms via U. S. Mail. If they weren't allowed on U. S. Postal Service property you obviously couldn't ship them from there.

 

[Wyatt]

Well, you are allowed to ship firearms via U. S. Mail. If they weren't allowed on U. S. Postal Service property you obviously couldn't ship them from there.

And that is exactly why I asked the original question! I got to reading Section 930 and nowhere could I find an exception for bringing firearms onto Post Office property to ship. I thought maybe there was another law that covered firearms packaged/not readily accessible for shipping.

 

[AK103K]

Two of my buddies were postmasters until they retired (both in the past 5 years), and both said, of the two cites you see in the signs in the PO's, one was related to the general public, the other to the employees of the PO itself.

The one relating to the general public, in public areas of the PO, 18 U.S. Code § 930, has the typical "any lawful purpose" clause, most of these type of regs have, such as and inducing the "gun free school zones".

As with most, its at the bottom....

18 U.S. Code § 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.

(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 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, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(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.

Now, with most things "law" wise these days, those in law enforcement really dont know the law, and youre probably going to have to argue it in court, but it is right there in their "rules", in black and white. Not that I want to be the one to have to push the issue, nor am I looking to poke the bear either.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It's really a matter of USPS regulations (which have the force of law). 39 CFR 232.1(l) provides:

(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.

 

[AK103K]

If one cite negates the other, why cite both?

 

[Jim K]

So, 39 CFR 232 (1) l, nullifies 18 USC 930 (d). But a USPS regulation can't nullify a law.

As to terms like "official purposes", in the postal regulations, why can't they simply say, "except for official purposes, including the mailing of such firearms in accordance with applicable regulations."

The business about hunting applies to federal property, including many military bases, where hunting is allowed, but I doubt there is much "lawful" hunting done in post offices.

Jim

 

[AK103K]

As to the "other lawful purposes", if youre doing nothing "unlawful", and are "lawfully carrying", as per the cite, then how are you violating the law?

 

[Frank Ettin]

As to the "other lawful purposes", if youre doing nothing "unlawful", and are "lawfully carrying", as per the cite, then how are you violating the law?

Your view notwithstanding, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the application of 39 CFR 232.1(l) prohibit even the otherwise lawful possession of a gun in a Post Office parking lot (Bonidy v. Unite States Postal Service (10th Circuit, Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391, 2015)).

 

[AK103K]

Well, as I asked earlier, why post conflicting cites? Unless of course, thats the point.

 

[Redacted]

Would I be violating the law if I left my CCW secured in my car, but off USPS premises, then walked into the Post Office with a full magazine in my pocket?

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, 39 CFR 232 (1) l, nullifies 18 USC 930 (d). But a USPS regulation can't nullify a law....

Congress has granted the USPS broad authority to adopt its own regulations.

See 39 USC 401(2):

Subject to the provisions of section 404a, the Postal Service shall have the following general powers:

(1)...;

(2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this title, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions under this title and such other functions as may be assigned to the Postal Service under any provisions of law outside of this title;....​

and 18 U.S.C. § 3061(4)(A):

(4)

(A) ... 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,...​

 

[Tony k]

I've been looking at 18USC930 as well. I'm a Forest Service employee, and I've been trying to get clarification regarding the "other lawful purposes" clause.

Most forest service building are posted "firearms prohibited" and reference 18usc930, but the posting references the wrong subsection.

The post office regulations only apply to the post office, other federal agencies have their own regulations based on their interpretation of 18usc930. I need to look at the court case listed above to see how it affects other federal agencies.

Don't forget that 18usc930 is covers all "dangerous weapons", not just guns. You are just as much violating the law with a pocket knife that has a blade longer than 2.5" as you are with a firearm.

 

[Grumulkin]

Notwithstanding what has been said, it has been well established for DECADES that an individual may mail a rifle which is brought on to U. S. Post Office property. A FFL holder may in addition mail a handgun from said property. The weapons must be declared and must be unloaded. So OBVIOUSLY, since the whole country has been doing it for decades with no arrests, etc., it must be legal. Whatever legal quotes are posted should somehow explain this mystery.

 

[dogtown tom]

Grumulkin Notwithstanding what has been said, it has been well established for DECADES that an individual may mail a rifle which is brought on to U. S. Post Office property. A FFL holder may in addition mail a handgun from said property. The weapons must be declared and .......

There is no USPS regulation that requires notification when mailing rifles or shotguns. The only notification requirement is for dealers when ailing firearms other than rifles and shotguns.

 

[Grumulkin]

There is no USPS regulation that requires notification when mailing rifles or shotguns. The only notification requirement is for dealers when ailing firearms other than rifles and shotguns.

Interesting. Then the legend passed down to me from other internet sites was in error.

 

[230RN]

It really is a snake pit. There's one post office at 4210 Wadsworth Blvd, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 I frequent which has post office mailboxes out in a common parking lot for other businesses. These boxes are 60-90 feet or so from the actual post office entrance. It is not in a separate building, so I must assume it is "under control" under a leasehold interest.

It is obviously impossible to drop mail into these boxes without stopping. So my question is, is there a restriction such that I have to disarm when dropping mail off in these boxes in that common parking lot?

The question sounds ridiculous, but it illustrates how in fact ridiculous those PO regs are, and how ridiculous the situation can become --as in fact proven by the number of times the issue has come up amongst firearms owners. Including Mr. Bonidy.

In another, perhaps more relevant instance, there is a contract post office station located inside an Ace Hardware store at 1719 Sheridan Blvd Edgewater, CO which I occasionally go to for mailings... since it's convenient in terms of "erranding."

It is in the back of the store. How close to the contract post office counter can I approach without disarming? Can I park my legal Personal Defense Firearm on one of the merchandise shelves 10 feet away? Twenty?? After all, I carry it for the specific legal purpose of self-defense.

Another ridiculous question about these ridiculous laws / regulations / opinions / what-have-you.

"Reasonable Restrictions..." hah!

OK, as a "private" entity, I can see the institution of the Postal Service as having a right to restrict entry with weapons, just as a homeowner or business owner might, but the postal service is only a quasi-governmental entity. It's sort of like the laws in some jurisdictions banning firearms from churches... by what right does any governmental body have the authority to restrict firearms carte blanche from a church, which is a private entity.

So what is it, 10-20 years in the pokey and a $150,000 fine for violation? I don't know, but it should only be a misdemeanor trespassing charge if you're asked to leave.

I repeat: "Reasonable Restrictions..." hah!

I realize this subforum is only for what the law "is," not what it should be, but I believe it is on-topic to present cases of how ridiculous some of the law "is."

Terry

 

[AK103K]

It really is a snake pit.

It sure can be if they really follow things to the letter. My one post office was in a deli. The actual "office", was a 10x15 room with a door at one corner, and the only access to the office was through the deli.

My PO Box was outside the office, in the deli proper, along a wall, behind the tater chip racks. So when was I in the post office and when was I not? Was I in violation facing my box, getting my mail? How about when I turned around and was buying chips?

This was also the first point I heard that the one cite applied to the postal employees, in this case, my postmaster buddy, who was the "only" office personnel there, along with a couple of rural carriers, and the other, the general public, in the public portions of the "office". In this case, a 6x10 spot on the publics side of the counter, and boxes outside the door.

Now, again I ask, are the contradictory cites done on purpose, and there to simply allow for "interpretation", as needed? Why else would they blatantly post conflicting cites? I guess my two postmaster buddies, who were running that, and another office (similar set up to the deli) were just bumbling government employees who didnt understand the company rules either. Although when you think about it, their version, makes perfect sense. Then again, perfect sense and the government, are the true oxymoron, eh?

From Franks court ruling, it appears that they are going with the "employee" version, so I suppose they need to change all those signs. Not sure what that will do to the tater chip business though.

Hmmmm, is the fat boy in the corner of the isle eating chips a postal inspector waiting to pounce? Or is he just a fat boy eating chips and reading the bulletin board? Mmmm, government rules and the Stasi.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

39CFR 232.1(b)(3) would seemingly imply that post office property which cannot be closed to the public after hours is open to the public and legal weapons unrestricted. Most post offices have an area in front open 24-7/365, never locked, in order to post and retrieve mail.

(3) Except as otherwise ordered, properties must be closed to the public after normal business hours. Properties also may be closed to the public in emergency situations and at such other times as may be necessary for the orderly conduct of business. Admission to properties during periods when such properties are closed to the public may be limited to authorized individuals who may be required to sign the register and display identification documents when requested by security force personnel or other authorized individuals.

 

[jmorris]

Well, you are allowed to ship firearms via U. S. Mail. If they weren't allowed on U. S. Postal Service property you obviously couldn't ship them from there.

It depends on what type and what license(s) you have but a civilian can ship some from a post office.

 

[Tony k]

Well, as I asked earlier, why post conflicting cites? Unless of course, thats the point.

18usc930 is a federal law enacted by congress. The CFRs are regulations crafted by bureaucrats. Sometimes CFRs do a decent job of interpreting the law for a particular situation or agency. Sometimes they fail and muddy the waters even further, as in the post office regulations.

I don't think the conflicting cites is deliberate, but it's inevitable in our Byzantine federal system where laws lead to regulations lead to policy lead to direction lead to guideline, and each time it gets reinterpreted by the next lower bureaucrat. That's a lot of cooks in the kitchen.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

The OP wanted to know if 18 U.S.C. Section 930 is the only law that addresses firearms on postal office property.

There appears to be at least one more:

39 USC 410 (b)(2)-- Application of other laws

(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:

(2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;