Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Odd: no signs at Post Office

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by misterwhipple, Apr 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. misterwhipple

    misterwhipple Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Virginia
    I just stopped at the PO for stamps, and kept my eye out for any kind of No Guns indication. There were no signs posted at any of the entrances, and I didn't see a Legal Notice-type poster anywhere.

    Granted, I stopped at the box lobby, so there could have been something posted in the retail section next to the fugitives' mugshots. Still, if they want people not to carry guns in there, I'd have thought they'd make it known before we're past all the doors and standing at the counter.
     
  2. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    They take it as a given that all us common folk know we shouldn't be carrying evil weapons into their sanctuaries.:D
    There are lots of disputes on whether P.O. carry is legal.Lots of threads on THR and elsewhere.
     
  3. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I did the same thing yesterday at my local post office and saw no signage either(?)
     
  4. pisgah

    pisgah Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    The USPS employees I know believe that the law forbids guns there. Well, no... The law allows carry for law enforcement personnel or anyone else carrying for "lawful purposes". Now, many interpret that to mean that since a Concealed Carry permit holder carrying for self defense is a "lawful purpose", then carry in the PO is OK -- but, as far as I can determine, it hasn't yet been tested in court. As for me, well, when I carry concealed, I carry concealed, so there's no way they can know whether I am or I ain't.
     
  5. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I was thinkin' the same thing as I entered the P.O., didn't see a sign...no problem. The sidewalk in front of my P.O. is a hang-out for many of the homeless and down-and-outers in the area. Harmless folks mostly...but a pretty desperate crew to wade through when you need stamps or something.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2008
  6. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    At my local PO, the sign decal is inside the door leading to the service area so that you can only see it as you're leaving.
     
  7. RTFM

    RTFM member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    Land of ID
    Ours is all the way inside - 90* from the service counter left hand side.
     
  8. SRT1

    SRT1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    517
    I just checked. My local PO has the signs posted on the entry door.
     
  9. searcher451

    searcher451 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,516
    Location:
    Oregon
    Just keep in mind where the phrase "Going Postal" comes from.
     
  10. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,808
    same here. It's inside on a sign that has all the rules for the post office.
     
  11. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    As far as I know, it comes from a single incident years ago in which an employee (or ex-employee) entered his work-place and started shooting. How is this any different from other work-place shootings?

    If a disgruntled employee shoots up a business of any kind, does that mean CCW should be banned from that business ever after?
     
  12. misterwhipple

    misterwhipple Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Virginia
    Going postal

    I used to work for a contractor to the USPS, and I came to feel that the postal employees were treated rather poorly. So, I was surprised to learn that the Postal Service actually has a lower incidence of workplace violence that the nation at large. Go figure.
     
  13. poker88

    poker88 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    MI

    The big incident was in 1986 but it looks like there have been several incidents. This is from wiki

     
  14. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    poker88,sometimes it seems half the U.S. is working for the USPS.
    Per capita, rainbowbob and misterwhipple are correct.
    Their rate of violence is lower.
     
  15. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    That is a much longer list than I suspected...I count 13.
     
  16. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I am reading my Washington State firearms statute and see nothing about post offices. Is this a federal law that would not necessarily be mentioned in my state statutes?
     
  17. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    See this article,bob:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening

    Concealed-carry in a post office may lead to rude awakening

    By Ken Hanson, Esq.
    Legislative Chair
    Buckeye Firearms Association

    There is considerable confusion over whether an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL) can carry a concealed firearm at the post office. This confusion mostly centers around the wording on the signs posted at the post office. The signs quote two sections of federal regulation - 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1.

    Looking at 18 USC 930, it would appear, at first blush, that carrying firearms is prohibited. That section provides:

    § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

    Release date: 2004-08-06

    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.

    So part of the confusion is rooted in the wording of this section. The prohibition applies to "Federal facilit(ies)" except as provide for in subsection (d). Subsection (d) provides:

    (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.

    Many people have seized upon (d)(3) with the argument that they have a CHL, so their carrying of a firearm is an "other lawful purpose" and therefore they are exempt from the sign. This is problematic for several reasons. First, 39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:

    § 410. Application of other laws

    Release date: 2003-06-24

    (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.

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

    (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;

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

    Thus it would appear, by operation of 39 USC 410, that 18 USC 930, a law that deals generally with Federal property, does not apply to the Powers of the Postal Service. Rather, the only provisions of 18 USC that would apply are those specific to the post office e.g. Theft of Mail, Robbing Post Offices, Stealing Postal Money Orders etc. Further evidence of the proposition that 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices is in the numbering of the aforementioned 39 CFR 232.1. As we will later examine, 39 CFR 232.1 clearly prohibits carrying firearms. CFR sections typically draw their numbering from the underlying laws that they are promulgated under, although there are numerous exceptions. The numbering of 39 CFR would be further evidence that 39 USC controls the situation, and not 18 USC.

    The second problem with relying on 18 USC 930(d)(3) is that this section in no way EMPOWERS anyone to carry a gun; rather, that section simply states that 18 USC 930 does not apply to someone is lawfully carrying a gun incident to some lawful purpose. In Ohio's law, there is a big difference between something NOT BEING PROHIBITED and something BEING SPECIFICALLY LICENSED. Just because a statute says that certain conduct is not prohibited by that particular statute does not automatically equate into authority to engage in the conduct.

    This is an important distinction, because the other part of the post office sign cites 39 CFR 232.1, which clearly does prohibit guns in post offices. In pertinent part, it states:

    (l) Weapons and explosives. 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.
    The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.

    First, as we previously examined, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, as we previously examined, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

    This being the case, at a minimum, we have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. That being the case, an Ohio CHL is prohibited from carrying at the post office by Ohio's criminal trespass. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that the Ohio CHL would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.

    I do not want to be right about the answer to this question, because I personally see no problem with a CHL carrying in a post office. However, I think some of the information/discussion going on in forums has the potential to expose the Ohio CHL to a rude awakening.
     
  18. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Thanks, Winchester. I waded through most of that and my impression is that if the P.O. posts NO GUNS - that means NO GUNS. I will have to look closer and see if there is a sign posted anywhere at my local P.O. Absent that, can I safely CCW?
     
  19. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
    Well,as a previous poster pointed out, there does not seem to be a "test case" on record.I cannot with 100% certainty say you can safely carry, even with a CCW.
    IANAL.Perhaps one of the many excellent attorneys on THR might interject with a firm opinion.
     
  20. Moonclip

    Moonclip Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,766
    Location:
    USA
    IIRC murder is the 2nd highst cause of death while working for the USPS after motor vehicle accidents.
     
  21. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,559
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    What is IIRC murder?
     
  22. btg3

    btg3 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,921
    The P.O. here is not federally owned property. It it leased from a private owner. Nevertheless, it is a "federal facility", thus I don't CC there.
     
  23. Neener Neener

    Neener Neener Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Rincon, Ga
    Don't do it..........
     
  24. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,576
    Location:
    Miami,Florida
  25. Huddog

    Huddog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    626
    Location:
    Georgia
    If it is not posted assume it is a trap.:confused:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page