Interesting Conversation at the IRS Office

[thejtrain]

The Feds can do whatever they want on their own property.

Yes, but they have to have a rule to back up their charge. 18 USC 930 only covers the building. There would have to be an additional code to cover the parking lot or have it posted (as Charles stated in a previous post.)

Right, I agree - I was just addressing the "I thought there had to be a posted 30.06 sign" comment, not the "is the parking lot part of 'property'" question, which other people far smarter than I have admirably addressed.

JT

[Penn]

As I understood it when I took my class is that the 30.06 sign would have to be posted at the entrance to the parking lot, to have the parking lot/garage included in the restriction.

Personally I think the IRS just wants to be the most dangerous entity in the building and being strapped you may pose more power than them.

30.06 is part of Texas law, and it has no bearing at all on Federal property. The Feds can do whatever they want on their own property.

JT

As I wrote earlier, feds can enforce any Texas law they want to and charge under 18 USC 13. Usually this is used for more specific type crimes that aren't covered the more general federal law. However, they would not be able to enforce 30.06 because of the exception for governmental facilities.

[lws380]

If the only federal law prohibiting the carrying of weapons on IRS "property" is the general prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 930 (quoted by Keith), then it is not illegal to leave your gun in your car. I qualify this answer only because I don't know if there is a CFR provision that extends the prohibition to all of the real estate, as with the post office and NASA.

Chas.

So, no concealed carry in Post Office parking lots? I thought I could leave in the car (post office parking lot) when going to the post office.

[Bashful]

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;

Then look at 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.

[CHL/LEO]

except for official purposes.

What's the definition of "official purposes"? Would carrying under the authority of your CHL meet this definition or is it for LEOs only?

[KC5AV]

I would think that anyone there to do business with the IRS would be there for an official purpose.

[Penn]

except for official purposes.

What's the definition of "official purposes"? Would carrying under the authority of your CHL meet this definition or is it for LEOs only?

I've read a few other threads on here about the post office and I think the general consensus is "who knows?"

I don't think it's ever been tested.

[longtooth]

except for official purposes.

What's the definition of "official purposes"? Would carrying under the authority of your CHL meet this definition or is it for LEOs only?

I've read a few other threads on here about the post office and I think the general consensus is "who knows?"

I don't think it's ever been tested.

And I dont want to be the test case.
When I had 1st joined the board I asked Charles about this & his last statement has never left my mind.
Those who are on the cutting edge of law usually bleed to death financially.

I have applied this to the Police Station carry issue too.

Yep probably win. At what cost?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$