TexasCHLforum.com

I am curious about carrying at a post office I know many people say you cant and I know that there is a recent court case of a man carrying in the parking lot. However my question is can you not carry because it is federal property or is it because texas statue says that its illegal to carry at a post office. Now with that being said I am still a young buck but I was always under the impression that the post office is not a federal entity in any way shape or form. I have no real evidence in regards to this besides the fact that when you go to there website it is a .com instead of a .gov site. I would imagine that if it was part of the federal government there website would be a .gov site. I tried to find a post office truck to see if they had gov. exempt plates but all the mail men around here use there personal vehicle. Just curious if anyone can clear this up for me.

The consensus is that it is a Federal entity and that you cannot carry.

Note: I worked for the USPS for a few years.

Purplehood wrote:The consensus is that it is a Federal entity and that you cannot carry.

Note: I worked for the USPS for a few years.

Ok not to be a jerk or anything but the consensus is diffrent from reality. You having worked there did you get federal benifits were you paid by the gov. I just dont understand why if everyone wants to carry everywhere why people just say aahh fine then I wont carry at the post office weather it is a federal entity or not.

Trust me I dont wana be the guy that rolls the dice in court and looses big both on money and being locked up however there has to be some sort of clarity out there somewhere

jordanusmc wrote:

Purplehood wrote:The consensus is that it is a Federal entity and that you cannot carry.

Note: I worked for the USPS for a few years.

Ok not to be a jerk or anything but the consensus is diffrent from reality. You having worked there did you get federal benifits were you paid by the gov. I just dont understand why if everyone wants to carry everywhere why people just say aahh fine then I wont carry at the post office weather it is a federal entity or not.

Trust me I dont wana be the guy that rolls the dice in court and looses big both on money and being locked up however there has to be some sort of clarity out there somewhere

As with all laws, until it comes up in court, consensus is all you can go by. The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. The property is owned or leased by the federal government.

jordanusmc wrote: Now with that being said I am still a young buck but I was always under the impression that the post office is not a federal entity in any way shape or form.

The Post Office Department was transformed into the United States Postal Service, an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States. The mission of the Postal Service remained the same, as stated in Title 39 of the U.S. Code:

The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.

The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971, when the Postmaster General ceased to be a member of the President’s Cabinet.

A search on "post office" will return hours of reading, all of which will still be inconclusive.

But it is definitely a government agency with facilities owned by the federal government.

jordanusmc wrote:However my question is can you not carry because it is federal property or is it because texas statue says that its illegal to carry at a post office.

Generic government property is not prohibited for CHL under Texas law. To the contrary, generic government property is an exception to 30.06. (Note I said "generic" as courts, et cetera, are prohibited under 46.03 and 46.035)

Federal law is another matter.

I am not a lawyer and, anyhow, you're not my client.

I know a lot of you guys are way more versed on laws and codes than I am. In this case, would 39 CFR 232.1(l) apply? It states: (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.

T.

The USPS is most definitely a Federal agency. It is subsidized by the government (and pays no federal taxes), and its regulations have the force of Federal Law as they are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, the same as any other government agency. (39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) is the one we are talking about here). The case you referred to is probably US vs Dorosan, which you may read about here: http://volokh.com/2009/10/16/government ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You will find a more complete description of it here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumera ... sabout.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So to the original point, it is a federal regulation (not Texas law) that says you are not supposed to carry at the USPS.

best wishes,

The more i look into this the more my head hurts. I have not carried inside a post office and don't intend to. Leaving it in the car? I get 2 different answers .So now i actually park off property,lock it up and walk across the street.I really don't want to roll the dice with this one.

IzzI wrote:The more i look into this the more my head hurts. I have not carried inside a post office and don't intend to. Leaving it in the car? I get 2 different answers .So now i actually park off property,lock it up and walk across the street.I really don't want to roll the dice with this one.

This is what we were told to do in class.

How does this apply?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(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.

Doesn't a CHL fall under "other Lawful Purpose"?

I suggest you use the forum search function and find the thread that discussed your very issue in detail. It is where I got my "general consensus" statement from. We beat that topic to death (like most of them that we really like/dislike).

mbw wrote:How does this apply?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 930
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(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.

Doesn't a CHL fall under "other Lawful Purpose"?

Here is a lawyer dealing with that very question: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conceale ... -awakening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I recall from my CHL renewal class last November. It is prohibited to carry (or have on, or about your person) a firearm at a Post Office.

To include the parking lot, as it is Federal property. It doesn't matter what kind of sign they post.

I could be wrong about having it in your vehicle, but as I recall, no firearms on Fed land.
(I wonder if this will change with that Credit Card bill?)

Larry

mbw wrote:Doesn't a CHL fall under "other Lawful Purpose"?

To many of us, yes! That is why there will always be disagreement on this issue until it is addressed by the legislatures.