USPS and its parking lots

[BP Hunter]

AS many of us already know, it is illegal to carry or even park a car with a firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot of any USPS offices. Does this law pertain to all federal building parking lots? Thanksfor your answers.

 

[medalguy]

Hmmmm. Seems like I violate THAT one every single day. Oh well.

Not sure about any other buildings.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Other Federal building parking lots are controlled by the administrators of that building. Some will be off limits and posted, others will not be off limits and not posted. Posting at entrances is required in accordance with 18 USC 930 in order to be convicted.

In regards to the Post Office: the post office prohibition is ALSO in the Code of Federal Regulations for the post office IN ADDITION to 18 USC 930. The CFR is what prohibits firearms on ALL postal property, including parking lots, and does not grant the local postmaster any authority to allow firearms. In addition, according to the post office CFR - posting is NOT REQUIRED to be at the entrances and a lack of proper does not preclude prosecution.

 

[rromeo]

in the parking lot of any USPS offices

I believe that only applies if the post office has its own parking lot. If the office is in a shopping center, then they can't restrict you.

 

[ultradoc]

My local post office is in a strip mall. Can I park in the strip mall parking lot I wonder?

 

[NavyLCDR]

The prohibition only applies to real property leased or under the control of the postal service. Strip mall parking lots are not under the control of the postal service, neither are grocery stores that have a post office service counter.

A dedicated space (retail space) in the mall leased by the post office is. The area behind the counter at a post office service location in a grocery store is.

 

[DPris]

And you can take a firearm into the PO, under certain circumstances.
It's not an absolute NO regarding guns on the property or in the building at all.
Denis

 

[Coyote3855]

What circumstances?

 

[Birch Knoll]

And you can take a firearm into the PO, under certain circumstances.

Outside of legally mailing a packaged firearm, or wearing one as a law enforcement officer, it's difficult to think of any that won't get you arrested.

 

[DPris]

Mailing is one.
The regs are contradictory in prohibiting firearms on the premises while on the other hand allowing them to be mailed on the premises.

The definition of "official purposes" can also be vague, but that's another argument that can go on for a while.
Most people interpret official purposes as LE, but a case could be made that if ANYBODY's there to mail something, which is the official purpose & function of the PO to begin with, then the prohibition does not apply.

To further muddy the issue, if you're there to mail a gun in a box & happen to be also carrying one concealed in a holster, are you in violation of a reg, or are you not?
You're mailing one gun, which is permissable, but not the other one. The regs can be less than clear.
Denis

 

[gripper]

Hell,I carry all the time,and check my PO box on the way to work (armed guard at the FAA)....no one bats an eye,and I do not look very cop-like....although I.do.keep my creds on a lanyard around my neck.

 

[brickeyee]

You're mailing one gun, which is permissable, but not the other one. The regs can be less than clear.
Denis

One is allowed, the other is NOT.
It is not all that hard to understand.
Mailing a firearm IS an 'official purpose,' while carrying a gun with no intention of mailing it is not.

It is only foolish people that want to somehow extend carrying a concealed weapon onto Federal property as an 'official purpose' that seem to be confused.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's interesting to note that the law hasn't changed, only how it is "interpreted". That's the Obama Administration for ya!

Woody

 

[nickn10]

If history is to be considered then it seems to me that they have more to fear from an employee with a gun rather than from a customer.

 

[Matthew Courtney]

One is allowed, the other is NOT.
It is not all that hard to understand.
Mailing a firearm IS an 'official purpose,' while carrying a gun with no intention of mailing it is not.

It is only foolish people that want to somehow extend carrying a concealed weapon onto Federal property as an 'official purpose' that seem to be confused.

Would you please cite the case law that supports your assertion that the gun itself has to be directly related to the official purpose? A plain reading of the law indicates that the visit must be for an official purpose and the carrying of the gun for a lawful purpose.

 

[NavyLCDR]

A plain reading of the law indicates that the visit must be for an official purpose and the carrying of the gun for a lawful purpose.

First, we must post what law we are discussing:

39 CFR 232.1:

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.
(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.

I don't see any other interpretation except that the "official purposes" only applies to the actual carrying or storing of the firearm, not merely the reason for the visit to the post office. An official purpose would be to actually mail the firearm, military member carrying an issued firearm in the performance of their duties (probably never happen), or a LEO carrying a firearm while on duty. And I don't see the words "lawful purpose" anywhere in the regulation.

 

[CTPhil]

I carry to the door of the PO but leave the gun in the vehicle. Our PO is the lower floor of a 2 family Victorian house, and I figure the people upstairs have full rights to carry in the parking lot, so should I.

 

[brickeyee]

I don't see any other interpretation except that the "official purposes" only applies to the actual carrying or storing of the firearm, not merely the reason for the visit to the post office. An official purpose would be to actually mail the firearm, military member carrying an issued firearm in the performance of their duties (probably never happen), or a LEO carrying a firearm while on duty. And I don't see the words "lawful purpose" anywhere in the regulation.

Even a local LEO is out of their jurisdiction on Federal property.

Carrying for self defense is NO an 'Ofilia purpose' related even tangentially to USPS business.

USPS defines what is "official business", and mailing a long gun 9or a handgun if you are an FFL) is about as close as you are going to get.

If you think this is not correct you should waltz on down to your local post office with a gun on your hip and have a talk with the postmaster.
You can as 'official' questions' and see how they respond.

You should probably have your attorneys phone number easily available.

And keep in mind that your 2nd amendment rights are not going to protect you, or survive the legal battle if you lose.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Even a local LEO is out of their jurisdiction on Federal property.

However, there is reasonable debate that a LEO carrying a gun while on duty would fall under the "official purposes" exception,

18 USC 930:

(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.

(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;

When we invite Local LEO to do traffic safety lectures and such, they do not have to disarm on the military base. However, you are correct, a LEO visiting the post office to mail a letter on the way to/from work may not be official enough to meet the exception in the CFR (but I doubt a court would rule against the LEO). Does LEOSA cover them at the Post Office?

Answered my own question, LEOSA only overrules: "(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof," and does not overrule Federal law.