TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:18 USC 930 defines a "federal facility" as a "building or portion of a building" where federal employees work. By the same reasoning that "incident to" precludes buying stamps while armed, it's impossible for hunting to be "incident to" being armed in a "federal facility". Or, perhaps "incident to" has a broader definition when it comes to "lawful purposes".

It does not have a broader meaning in the context of "lawful purposes." I too noted the problem with using the narrowly defined term "facility," but the effect doesn't broaden the scope of the phrase "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." Rather it probably renders the exception meaningless in terms of hunting, but not in terms of "other lawful purposes." For example, it could well be lawful to engage in target shooting in a "federal facility," or it could be lawful to teach a firearms course in a "federal facility" using firearms.

chabouk wrote:I really shouldn't have gotten into that, because none of it applies to post offices. Someone earlier posted a link to the buckeyefirearms page where a lawyer convincingly demonstrates that USPS is exempt from 18 USC 930. Citing that code while discussing the post office is irrelevant, because 18 USC 930 does not apply in post offices. They have their own, separate CFR that covers parking lots and all property, not just buildings.

Yes, I said this in an earlier post in this thread and I've been teaching this for years. However, many folks who accept the "other lawful activities" exception nevertheless still believe Post Office carry is legal. Plus, the 18 U.S.C. 930 "exception" applies to any federal facility, so the impact of the phrase "incident to" is still important.

Chas.

Mike1951 wrote:I guess I misunderstood in that I thought anything in the Code of Federal Regulations had to have a corresponding entry in the U.S. Code for it to be enforceable. If that were correct, the CFR would not override the USC.

The purpose of allowing federal agencies to make rules and post them in the CFR's is to reduce the workload on Congress. Without the CFR's, Congress would have to pass a bill for every federal rule in existence. However, Congress didn't want to give federal agencies the authority to make any and every rule they pleased, nor would the Constitution allow it. Therefore, so-called "enabling statutes" are passed by Congress authorizing specific federal agencies to make rules and publish them in the CFR's. These enabling statutes specify the scope of an agency's authority to publish rules by setting out the subject matter an agency can address and any applicable limits. So if a proposed rule exceeds an agency's scope of authority, it can be challenged in court. However, when a rule is published, it is not necessary to pass a federal law that mirrors the rule.

Here is an example. Let's say the enabling statute granted the Post Office authority to issue rules/regulations concerning security on Post Office property. If the PO issued a rule that only clear see-through back backs would allowed, the rule would probably be within the scope of the PO's authority under the enabling statute. However, if the PO issued a rule prohibiting the wearing of white shoes, then it would exceed the authority of the enabling statute.

Mike1951 wrote:Also, with respect to "incident to". When was hunting ever allowed in the Post Office? The intent had to have been to protect someone who had been or was going hunting and happened to stop at the post office. So their shotgun was also not incident to buying stamps, yet they were exempt.

You're right, hunting has never been legal in a Post Office. However, 18 U.S.C. 930's "incident to hunting and other lawful activity" exception broadly applies to any and all federal facilities, not specifically to Post Offices. By necessity, it applies only to federal facilities on which hunting is even possible. Therefore, since it was no designed to apply only to Post Offices, there was not intent to protect returning hunters who stop at a Post Office on the way home. The intent of this provision was to allow hunting, competitive shooting, informal shooting, and training on certain federal property.

Chas.

Beiruty wrote:Chas,

Some post offices are in a strip mall. The parking is shared among many retail stores. If I parked my car, disarmed, left my pistol in my car, and went into the PO. Am I still breaching the law?

In my opinion you are not violating the law under these facts. If a Post Office chooses to lease space in a privately owned strip center, then it doesn't control the entire property, including but not limited to the parking lot. As with any tenant, it would control only it's leasehold area.

Chas.

Post office carry comes up periodically and there are long-running threads on this issue so I won't give the long-winded version again. Here is the short version.

• 1. Texas law does not prohibit concealed-carry in a Post Office, but federal law does;
  
  2. As already noted in this thread, a CFR covering Post Office property removes it from any protection that might have been available to a CHL by way of the "other lawful activity" clause in 18 U.S.C. 930.
  
  3. 18 U.S.C. 930 would not protect a CHL, even if the above-referenced CFR were not in place.

Even if there was no CFR prohibiting the carrying of firearms on Post Office property, the "other lawful activity" argument fails to appreciate the importance of the phrase "incident to . . ." This provision reads in pertinent part as follows:

(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.

A firearm is "incident to" hunting since it is a necessary element in that activity. Without the firearm, the person would not be able to hunt. (Yes, I know you could use a bow, but those are also prohibited.) The self-defense handgun on your side is not "incident to" anything you are going to do in a Post Office. It isn't an integral part of buying stamps, mailing a package, or checking a post office box. Some argue that it is "incident to lawful self-defense," but that argument fails. You are carrying a gun to be capable of defending yourself should the need arise; you are not engaging in "lawful self-defense" when you are buying stamps, etc.

Some argue that the "other lawful activity" is simply the act of carrying of a handgun, but that circular reasoning also fails. The possession of a firearm or other weapon on federal property must be "incident to" another lawful activity. No activity can be "incident to" itself. Look at it as a two question inquiry: 1) are you carrying a gun; and 2) is that gun necessary or integral to conducting another lawful activity in the federal facility? If you cannot answer "yes" to both questions, then 18 U.S.C. 930 does not offer any protection to a person carrying a firearm in a federal facility.

The bottom line is this: it is illegral to possess a firearm on Post Office property and this includes the entire real estate, not just the building; well-intended, well-motivated arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

Chas.