Firearms on Post Office Property Question

[Frank Ettin]

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....

Phooey! It does nothing of the sort.

39 CFR 232.1 sets out general rules for the operation of properties operated by the USPS (39 CFR 232.1(a)):

(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....

Subparagraph (b)(3) is a free standing rule relating to access to USPS premises outside of normal business hours, including a requirement that access be restricted to authorized persons, "Except as otherwise ordered...."

Subparagraph (l) is also a free standing and in the broadest terms prohibits the carrying of weapons (emphasis added):

(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]

So how does that last part work when "postal property" is on or attached to, private property?

Ive seen posted a number of times, that these regs apply to parking lots, sidewalks, ext, that are attached to or border the PO. What about places like the deli my PO was in, and the others like it?

Sure seems to me, "conflict" works great for them, if they ever feel the need. Just another weapon of control against us, the law abiding.

It is kind of funny too, that the "rules" specifically target "illegal" acts in all these types of cites, and yet always seem to allow, "lawful acts". Ive always thought that it was necessary to keep things "Constitutional", or at least appear they are acknowledging it. Pretty much every "law" Ive seen addressing firearms have that "any other "lawful" purpose" clause, federal and state.

Makes you wonder how the SC can come to a contrary decision otherwise, doesnt it? Then again, I suppose all it really shows is, they can, and will, do just whatever they want, in the name of the law (for us, trying to be, law abiding citizens ).

 

[Frank Ettin]

So how does that last part work when "postal property" is on or attached to, private property?

Ive seen posted a number of times, that these regs apply to parking lots, sidewalks, ext, that are attached to or border the PO. What about places like the deli my PO was in, and the others like it?...

Well let's look 39 CFR 232.1(a) again:

(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;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks...​

Note that (h)(1) applies to soliciting and (o) applies to distribution of literature.

....Sure seems to me, "conflict" works great for them, if they ever feel the need. Just another weapon of control against us, the law abiding....

It is what it is. Write your Congress Member or try your luck in court. And one is only "law abiding" until he violates the law.

 

[230RN]

Except in this thread we have several examples of "what is the law?"

I really don't want to make things difficult, but I would like to demonstrate that in fact it is impossible for the normal mortal to know whether he is breaking the law or not... and therefore "law-abiding" or not.

Specific case in point is the mailboxes at my previously-noted post office on 41st and Wadsworth in Wheat Ridge. See attached, which I hope is clear enough.

Note the barricades around the mailboxes. Note also the painted walkway from the sidewalk to those mailboxes. Note that the mailboxes are about 90 feet from the Post Office entrance and are in fact "real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service."

I am legally armed for the lawful purpose of self defense with a loaded Personal Defense Firearm. I have mail to drop in one of those boxes. I drive up to them, necessarily stop very near to the boxes and deposit my mail.

I am not there to "solicit" or "distribute literature."

Am I no longer a law-abiding citizen at that point in time?

Or must I carry around (presumably in a trailer) a complete set of federal laws and regulations pursuant thereto... as well as a recreational trailer for the attorneys and the Federal Judge I must bring along at all times to debate and "interpret" those laws for me?

I say again, these laws are a rat's nest and the ordinary mortal should not have the burden of consulting with lawyers just to determine definitively whether or not he/she is a "law abiding citizen."

And it just doesn't cut it to say, "It is what it is. Write your Congress Member or try your luck in court. And one is only 'law abiding' until he violates the law."

Terry, 230RN

(The area in the lower right is a restricted post office service truck parking area, with its white vans.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I say again, these laws are a rat's nest and the ordinary mortal should not have the burden of consulting with lawyers just to determine definitively whether or not he/she is a "law abiding citizen."

Yes, you've said that, as have others. Nonetheless, it is a fact that there are many laws, and the consequences of violating them can be very unpleasant.

Which is why people who are involved in highly regulated activities need to spend the time and effort to become educated in the laws that affect or apply to those activities.

I've noticed that a lot of folks interested in, and involved with, firearms seem to spend a lot more time and energy complaining about why the gun laws are wrong than trying to understand what they are and how things actually work.

Certainly we need to work to change some highly restrictive, and arguably useless gun laws. We need to support well devised and focused litigation to build good Second Amendment jurisprudence on the foundation laid by Heller and McDonald. We need to adroitly use our political power. And we need to continue to work on changing the attitudes of the public about guns and the people who lawfully own them.

But in the meantime, we need to deal with the law as it is. We all need to be using our time and effort to understand it, rather than simply grousing about it.

 

[tkaction]

Its seems that under the "does not apply to" that you could walk on the sidewalk
that runs in front of the PO and not be in violation.

 

[Kleanbore]

Its seems that under the "does not apply to" that you could walk on the sidewalk
that runs in front of the PO and not be in violation.

...of prohibitions of soliciting and of distributing literature.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

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

Correct, a regulation cannot nullify a law. To the extent the USPS has overwritten Title 18 of the USC with it's own regs in conflict with Title 18, USC, such regs are clearly illegal if such conflicts are present.

In the above light, the following probably deserves to be read again:

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;

 

[Frank Ettin]

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

Correct, a regulation cannot nullify a law. To the extent the USPS has overwritten Title 18 of the USC with it's own regs in conflict with Title 18, USC, such regs are clearly illegal if such conflicts are present....

You're wrong as usual.

1. As noted in post 15, Congress has given the USPS broad authority to promulgate regulations with respect to its operations and property.
   
   
2. There is a legal principle that law dealing with a specific subject will override a general law with respect to that subject. So a law or regulation specific to the operations or property of the USPS will generally be given preference by a court over a law dealing with federal property generally.
   
   
3. 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)).

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Nice try, Frank. But you're behind the curve on this one.

As noted in post 15, Congress has given the USPS broad authority to promulgate regulations with respect to its operations and property.

Those regs must be written in light of 39 USC 410 (a)(2).

There is a legal principle that law dealing with a specific subject will override a general law with respect to that subject. So a law or regulation specific to the operations or property of the USPS will generally be given preference by a court over a law dealing with federal property generally.

That by be the case where laws conflict, but here we are dealing with regs in conflict with a statute, and the statute governs.

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)).

An absurd result in light of 18 USC 930 and 39 USC 410.



With respect to the Tenth Circuit in Bonidy v USPS, I believe it was put in it's place by SCOTUS in McDonald:

The district court held that the regulation is constitutional insofar as it pertains to concealed firearms, based on Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir.2013), which held that the Second Amendment protection does not include a right to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1705917.html#sthash.K4JOK6fJ.dpuf

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1705917.html

 

[Jim K]

This thread is about worn out, but please one more question.

Is there anything anywhere that specifically says that mailing a package is an "official purpose" or am I risking arrest if I take a firearm, properly wrapped for mailing, and meeting the legal standards for mailing, onto post office property for the purpose of mailing it?

(The terms "official purpose", "official business" and "official use" generally have been interpreted to apply to government employees or contractors involved in actions carried out for the government's purposes, not the purpose of an individual. If, for example, I am authorized to use a government vehicle for "official business", I technically can't use it to go grocery shopping.)

Jim

 

[Frank Ettin]

As noted in post 15, Congress has given the USPS broad authority to promulgate regulations with respect to its operations and property.

Those regs must be written in light of 39 USC 410 (a)(2)....

Still wrong. You haven't read 39 USC 410 correctly.

Let's look at the statute 39 USC 410, first paragraph (a), emphasis added:

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service....

So let's look at (b)(2), emphasis added:

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

Now you seem to claim that 18 USC 930 is within that exception. 18 USC 930(a) provides:

(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.

But 18 USC 930 doesn't apply to the USPS; it applies to federal facilities generally. And a "federal facility" for the purposes of 18 USC 930 is defined at (g)(1):

(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.​

On the other hand the USPS is treated in many respects as an independent governmental body (39 USC 201):

There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service.

The organization, powers, and governance are defined in detail in Title 39 of the United States Code.

So how does 18 USC 930 deal with the Postal Service to bring it within the except to 39 USC 401(a)? How does it deal with the mails to bring it within the exception to 39 USC 401(a)?

Indeed, can you cite a case in which a federal court ruled that 18 USC 930 applied to a weapon on USPS property. Bonidy applies 39 CFR 232.1(l) to the question.

...That by be the case where laws conflict, but here we are dealing with regs in conflict with a statute, and the statute governs....

So cite a case supporting your contention.

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)).

An absurd result in light of 18 USC 930 and 39 USC 410...

Or you're just plain wrong, as you usually are and as I've demonstrated.

...With respect to the Tenth Circuit in Bonidy v USPS, I believe it was put in it's place by SCOTUS in McDonald...

It is nonetheless the law in the Tenth Circuit -- unless SCOTUS acts on the question.

...Is there anything anywhere that specifically says that mailing a package is an "official purpose" or am I risking arrest if I take a firearm, properly wrapped for mailing, and meeting the legal standards for mailing, onto post office property for the purpose of mailing it?...

Regulations of the USPS specifically provide for the mailing of firearms, subject to certain requirements and limitations.

 

[blindhari]

Ok, United States Post Office confusion:

1 The Continental Congress decreed a Postal Service in 1775 before there was a country

2 Benjamin Franklin was first Postmaster

3 Law at that time, 1775, was ENGLISH Tort law

4 Existent English Tort law was rolled into Us law after 1776

5 The current US Postal Service regulations date back to a mass of in service regulations that have the full effect of the law, Federal, behind them

6 The full unabridged regulations used to fill over 30 feet of shelf space, I know, I read them

7 No Federal judge in the last 200 years has been able to change even conflicting regulations for over 200 years, only USPS can do that

8 The USPS does not want clarity on this matter. Without changing regulations they are always able to escape any responsibility that could affect management.

Think about it, there is no inclusive answer, they can enforce any part of any regulation they want, their regulations preceed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and take precedence over both. You just ain't going to get an answer.

blindhari
USPS Retired

 

[gun_with_a_view]

It is nonetheless the law in the Tenth Circuit -- unless SCOTUS acts on the question.

The comments by Frank Ettin and those of blindhari suggest a SCOTUS trial on the issues is what it will take to get it right, or at least defined as to what law applies.

In the meantime, no need to "go postal" on the matter.

 

[Devonai]

I haven't been inside a post office in quite some time, but I seem to recall that the signs posted there cite 18 USC 930 and not 39 USC 401(a). Is this still the case?

Not that I'm willing to become the test case, but other than the old principle that one is required to know the laws of the land, in entirety, wouldn't posting only 18 USC 930 make it impossible for the layman to act in good faith with respect to all applicable laws?

I do recall that the Post Office only lists subsections A & B of 18 USC 930 on their signage, prompting me to look up the rest of it. Assuming someone does this in good faith, as I did, forwarding a prosecution based on 39 USC 401(a) seems to me to be the worst kind of "gotcha" law enforcement.

 

[230RN]

Devonai remarked,

I do recall that the Post Office only lists subsections A & B of 18 USC 930 on their signage, prompting me to look up the rest of it. Assuming someone does this in good faith, as I did, forwarding a prosecution based on 39 USC 401(a) seems to me to be the worst kind of "gotcha" law enforcement.

I did the same thing about ten years ago and figured I was OK carrying into the PO Box (POB) area (open to the public 24/7).

I figured, under the "all other lawful purposes" clause, permitted carry for self defense would be covered. I therefore could ignore the "abbreviated signage" Devonai mentioned. Fortunately, I generated no problems doing this, since I always conceal anyhow.

Then someone cited the additional regulations which made it look like despite the "lawful purposes" phraseology, it was in "in fact" illegal for even a permitted bearer of guns to do this. This may have been on the old packing dot org website.

Uh-oh. So I stopped carrying into the actual POB since there seemed to be some doubt as to whether it was legal or not.

This worked fine until I got crippled up and I would park in the PO handicapped spot, where I could disarm in the car, go in, and retrieve my mail. Then, somewhere, someone noted that the restriction applied as well to the parking area, it being "under the control of" the Postal Service.

Rats. OK, so I parked across the street and hobbled in on my cane and did my biz, then hobbled back. It is a peculiar situation, but the way the streets and the entrance to the PO works out, it's pretty dicey getting across that street at my usual 1 to 2 mile per hour pace.

That worked out fairly well --what the heck, I'm retired and in no rush --until winter came, with the snow-packed streets doubling the danger.

Then came the Bonidy case and I figured, well, well, my case is fairly analogous to Tab Bonidy's so I said the heck with it --"equal protection under the law," and all that, and again drove into the parking lot, parked in the handicapped space, disarmed, securing the firearm pursuant to local law as usual, and did my biz.

Then Judge Matsch's decision, specific to Bonidy's case, got overturned anyhow,

Rats.

Now it's come up again, and because of the flurry of case law and historical law citations, I'm going to figure the whole doggoned thing is constitutionally so vague in toto that I, the aforementioned ordinary mortal, among all you other ordinary mortals, can not tell what the law is.

So there, USPS. Gotcha!

Terry

 

[Sistema1927]

It appears that most of us commit several felonies each and every day as a result of the fact that many of our laws are intentionally written so to be incomprehensible.

Whatever happened to common sense?

 

[jr_roosa]

Whatever happened to common sense?

That's what judges, juries, and prosecutorial discretion are supposed to be for.

I called my lawyer the other day to ask a quick question about a regulatory issue. The next day I got an invoice for $192. It was well worth it because the answer saved me from problems that could have cost me much more.

If you really want an answer, call your lawyer and see what he says. I bet mine would say, "keep your guns far from the post office."

How's that for common sense?

I think I go into a post office about once a year to get a duck stamp, and one day I'll figure out how to just order one online. Fedex and UPS get my business unless it's something I can send from my mailbox with a stamp.

Just yesterday, I shipped a pistol back for some warranty work, and the guy at the FedEx desk convinced me to pester the manufacturer again because he was sure that the first CS person I talked to was wrong about me having to pay shipping myself, which was going to be pricey. He was right, and they even printed my e-mailed shipping label for free. Saved me about $75. Probably cost FedEx some money too because it went lower priority.

Imagine someone at the desk at the post office doing that for you.

-J.

 

[Jim K]

"Regulations of the USPS specifically provide for the mailing of firearms, subject to certain requirements and limitations."

Yes. But does the fact that the gun is to be mailed negate the ban on carrying it on P.O. property? Which regulation takes precedence, and who decides? Like others, I have no desire to become a test case, but could someone, even a dealer, take a packaged gun to the counter to be mailed, then be arrested by some over-zealous Postal cop or FBI guy for carrying it on P.O. property?

Jim.

 

[AK103K]

Id say that falls under "common sense rules".