Post Office Carry

[Photoman]

I suggest everyone google "72 FR 12565" and read the 16 March 2007 amendment to 39 CFR Part 232 in the Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51, page 12565.

[anygunanywhere]

Can you summarize for us?

Anygun

[txinvestigator]

Can you summarize for us?

Anygun

Or provide a link.................

[Skiprr]

Hm. Here's the page from the Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 51, that Photoman referenced. It's an Acrobat PDF file: http://ribbs.usps.gov/FILES/FEDREG/USPS2007/E7-4803.PDF.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Postal Service is
amending the rules for conduct on
Postal Service property to clarify the
prohibition of carrying or storing on
Postal Service property any firearms or
other dangerous weapons, or deadly
weapons or explosives, except for
official purposes.

DATES: Effective March 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence Katz, Inspector in Charge,
Office of Counsel, U.S. Postal Inspection
Service, 202–268–7732.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
amendment to the prohibition of
carrying, either openly or concealed, or
storing any firearms, other dangerous or
deadly weapons or explosives on Postal
Service property is to clarify the rule,
ensuring that these items are only
possessed for official purposes. This
change would eliminate potential
conflicts with other laws, rules or
regulations which may allow the
possession of these articles for other
than official purposes.

[seamusTX]

(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 have no idea what this means.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

(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 have no idea what this means.

- Jim

The "notwithstanding . . ." language is intended to nullify any other statute or rule that would allow the carrying of a firearm on postal property. Similar language is used in legislation when the goal is to make sure there isn't some other statute that would impact the application of a particular law. The “notwithstanding� language is primarily used in areas that are subject to many different statutory provisions and amending all of them would be burdensome, or the chance of missing one is significant, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation.

Chas.

[shipwreck]

Ahhh.... Makes perfect sense

[WarHawk-AVG]

The catch all "finger in the eye" of CHL owners

and it says Postal Property...this means the parkinglot as well

[Crossfire]

(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 have no idea what this means.

- Jim

The "notwithstanding . . ." language is intended to nullify any other statute or rule that would allow the carrying of a firearm on postal property. Similar language is used in legislation when the goal is to make sure there isn't some other statute that would impact the application of a particular law. The “notwithstanding� language is primarily used in areas that are subject to many different statutory provisions and amending all of them would be burdensome, or the chance of missing one is significant, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation.

Chas.

Charles,

Could you explain to us what "official purposes" means?

[Photoman]

Thanks Skippr. That's the one.

[barres]

Charles,

Could you explain to us what "official purposes" means?

Not Charles, nor am I a lawyer, but I would imagine this allows LEO's and Postal Inspectors to still carry while on duty.

[stevie_d_64]

In other words...

Same ole story, different day...

Somebody just stirred the pot...

And the soup still ain't done!

I have a friend who is a "postal inspector" he is a federal officer and is one of the best in this field in our area...

I asked him this question about conducting lawful business in a post office while armed in accordance to state law...

He took in all of the factors in this issue, and is extremely empathetic to "our" concern over this issue...He would truely struggle with this if it ever crossed his path...

Yet he is still charged with upholding the Federal side of this, and that no carry on or about post office property (including the "public" parking area) is illegal...

"I'd hate to have to arrest and charge you, Steve"

I've not had to broach the subject with him again, ever...

[HankB]

[rant mode]When I was in school, I learned that laws were passed by elected legislators, and had to be signed off by the executive branch; at which point the law was valid unless repealed or overturned by the judiciary.

Nowhere did I learn that unelected, anonymous bureaucrats could make laws just by calling them something else, nor did I learn that legislators could delegate their lawmaking.

In my opinion, many of today's ills are the direct result of unelected anonymous bureaucrats in various alphabet agencies making laws.[/rant mode]

Personally, if I were ever on jury where someone were charged with violating a regulation or rule, I would hang the jury before I convicted them. (And no, I'm not inclined to become a test case myself.)

[KBCraig]

"I'd hate to have to arrest and charge you, Steve"

For all this hooplah, it's still only a $50 fine.

[ScubaSigGuy]

The parking lot part of that is a real pain.

Not intending to be insensitive or offend anyone, but It would seem that this rule is to protect the emplyees from other disgruntled employees.

I have never heard of anyone walking off the street into a post office and doing harm to anyone.

Edited to include:

Of course that argument could be used the other way as well.

It just really bothers me that if I need to stop at the PO, then legally I have to leave the house unarmed or find a PO adjacent to somewhere where it is legal to park with my weapon in the car.