Why aren't CCW holders allowed to carry into a Post Office?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TargetTerror

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
469
Location
Stalingrad, MA
I've been told repeatedly that a citizen cannot carry a firearm into a Post Office because it is a Federal facility. While I find this to be silly for all of the standard pro-CCW reasons, I hadn't questioned the regulation until a friend of mine stated that CCWs were exempted under the law governing firearms in Post Office. After looking at the law and doing a little bit of legal research, he seems to be correct. The law in question appears to be US Code Title 18 Section 930. Here is the text (emphasis added):


(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.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).


Sections B and C apply to violent criminals, or those with intent to be violent criminals. I'm not concerned with these sections, as I don't plan to fall into either category. Section A is the important section, as it deals with knowing possession of a firearm in a Federal building. That would describe any CCW permit holder entering a Post Office. (As an interesting aside, I think the language of Section A would not apply if you put your gun in your pocket, forgot it was there, and then went into the building :p. But the government would probably find some way around that...)

EXEMPTIONS are listed under Section E. Section E(3), to my reading, should exempt a CCW holder. The text specifically exempts "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." So the real question is, does simply carrying a firearm lawfully, for general protection, satisfy the "other lawful purposes" clause of this statute?

I did some quick research (admittedly not too in depth) and didn't find a single case which dealt with Section E(3). Most cases seem to revolve around the issue of "Notice" (requirement that the law banning firearms be posted at entrances).

So, back to my initial question. Why aren't CCW holders allowed to carry in a Post Office? Is there another law governing carry in POs? If not, why are we not exempted?
 
Because if they catch you doing it they'll arrest you, and let a judge work out the applicability of exceptions involving vague terms.

This is a prime example of why concealed carry is important: in many cases carrying a handgun IS LEGAL, but the powers that be don't care/know and will arrest you, jail you, soak you for legal fees, and generally wreck your life. While some may criticize me with "stand up for your rights!", some of us would rather maintain a mundane existence if easily done.

Interestingly, this situation cannot be resolved without someone being outright arrested and being a test case. There is no way to challenge the situation, because the law is reasonable: you may carry a firearm in a Post Office for any lawful purpose. Unfortunately, it is unwritten policy to arrest you for it anyway. You ready to be the test case?
 
Postal workers have been known to go ballistic.

In the event that a postal worker does run amok and start killing people, you can point at the notice and explain that he or she is violating the law.

If the notice wasn't displayed you couldn't do that.
 
I'd say you can't carry in a post office for the same reason you can't carry in a school ... I suppose if there was a mall shooting then they'd ban guns at malls, except that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over malls like they do post offices and schools.
 
Uh, guys, there's an explicit exemption in the law for carrying firearms on USPS property pursuant to lawful activity. That's the point of the thread.
 
The point of the thread seems to be what the original poster said it was: "So, back to my initial question. Why aren't CCW holders allowed to carry in a Post Office? Is there another law governing carry in POs? If not, why are we not exempted?"
 
My understanding is that permit holders (or presumably in Vermont or Alaska, pretty much anybody) should be legal under the existing Federal law since carry for self defense is a "lawful purpose", but the Postal Service, incorrectly, feels otherwise and there just hasn't been a court case to clarify the law.

Any volunteers?
 
US Code Title 18 Section 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—
...
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
'nuff said.
 
I think that a court if asked would most likely find that 18 USC 930 (d) did not apply. Under another statute, 39 USC 410, most federal law, including federal laws applicable to federal property, don’t apply to the exercise of powers by the Postal Service.

It thus appears that the Postal Service would have the authority to adopt a regulation more broadly prohibiting the carrying of firearms on Postal Service property. The Postal Service has done so. A USPS regulation (39 CFR 232.1) in fact specifically prohibits the carrying of a firearm into a Post Office.
 
I thought that there was a special law for post offices passed in response to post office shootings ... OK I googled it and found:


I have heard it said that it is within the law to carry a concealed firearm into a Federal Post Office. It is not. Don't do it!!

There are two sections of law that deal with this, and they are cited below. Section 930 of the US Code could possibly be construed to allow concealed carry on Post Office property with a valid concealed carry permit.

However, Title 39, Part 232 Volume 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations makes it clear that firearms may only be possessed or stored on Postal Property for "Official Purposes".

It's highly unlikely the authorities are going to consider your CCDW permit an "Official Purpose".



[edit] I see fiddletown beat me to it.
 
first, the USPO is not Federal Property.

it is a PRIVATE entity that falls under federal guidlines and protection.

the USPO gets no federal funding for its operation. now what "other federal property" can say that?, none because its not federal property.


second, like posted already from the statues....Quote:
US Code Title 18 Section 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—
...
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

'nuff said.
 
Last edited:
I went to the page I usually provide a link to, and I found this. At this point, I am not sure. There has apparently been a revision of USPS regulations, specifically a new introductory clause to 232.l.......

CR232.1 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.

I figure if the attorney who has given a free opinion for years is given pause by the new introductory clause, perhaps I should be given pause as well.
 
They can't ban it as you are permited to ship it which means you must carry it in and disclose to the postal employee that you are shipping it. I could see where this would cause a big headache for someone.

Then again I always go back to if you are carrying concealed properly how would anyone find out to get you in trouble?
 
Interesting. I use to go by the post that used to be at the link that XavierBreath posted. I wonder if Firriolo will post some update in the future.

I would guess (always dangerous) that "shipping a gun" falls under "official purposes." I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if that term actually means something or if it is purposefully vague. About once a day I walk into the post office with a handgun in a box and a form that says the box contains a handgun. The nice postal employee reads the form and stamps it and signs it, and in theory stores it for one year.
 
The Postmaster General has set the law in the Code of Federal Regulations, as Xavior posted, that is why it IS illegal.

TITLE 39--POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PART 232--CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents

Sec. 232.1 Conduct on postal property.
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.
...

(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.
 
so what is an "official purpose"?

you see how that is vague and open to be what ever the authority at the time wants it to be....
 
first, the USPO is not Federal Property.

it is a PRIVATE entity that falls under federal guidlines and protection.

the USPO gets no federal funding for its operation. now what "other federal
property" can say that?, none because its not federal property.


second, like posted already from the statues....Quote:
US Code Title 18 Section 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—
...
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


'nuff said.


We're talking about the govt here. They maintain a veil of illegalty by omission.
 
"lawful purpose" vs "official purpose".



See the difference a word makes?


See the power of the ~regulatory~ process? (For those of you who don't know, the making of laws is the ~legislative~ process, the result of which is the delegation of power to the ~regulatory~ process.)

One word, ultimately selected by one political appointee.


This is where your voting rubber meets the road.
 
Another thing to consider is that Post Offices are NOT Federal Facilities. They have not been for a number of years. Postal Employees (with a few exceptions... ie Post Master General and Postal Inspectors) are NOT federal employees.
 
Our laws are ridiculous

This is a perfect example of why I'm so Libertarian in my political and social beliefs. Here we are, all at least of average intelligence and none of us can figure out what this law really means and how it might be applied. No one should ever have to be a test case to determine if they've broken the law. Everybody SHOULD understand ALL laws, I believe. I believe no law should exist, nor an arrest be legally made unless the actions of a consenting adult pass the following test:
1) Did you hurt another citizen, phyiscally, financially or otherwise?
2) Did you take something that doesn't belong to you?
If the answer to each question is "no", then there should be no way that citizen has broken a law...at least in my Libertarian world, that would be the case. Does anyone here actually support our ridiculous myriad of laws that exist where not even lawyers, judges nor the cops can agree when someone has broken the law? Does anyone here support the fact that most arrests and convicts where based on consentual activity between adults, where no one else got hurt nor was anything stolen? It's beyond ridiculous if you ask me.
 
If the "lawful purpose" exception for a federal facility does not apply, because the USPS is no longer federal, but private, then why wouldn't state laws apply? E.g., why wouldn't they have to meet any applicable state laws regarding posting? Do they have the famous 30.06 signs at post offices in TX?
 
"first, the USPO is not Federal Property.

it is a PRIVATE entity that falls under federal guidlines and protection.

the USPO gets no federal funding for its operation. now what "other federal property" can say that?, none because its not federal property."

You are almost funny!!!

The SOLE owner of the USPS is the Federal Government.

Funding has NOTHING to do with OWNERSHIP.

Ask about the jurisdiction of the postal inspectors.
 
If someone thinks that there is something vague or unclear or unenforceable about 39 CFR 232.1, he is welcome to walk into a large U. S. Post Office in a state in which open carry is legal openly wearing his roscoe. He'll thus have a golden opportunity to see if a federal court has any difficulty applying that USPS regulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top