CHL presented as 2nd ID - it was a first for me :)

[Bubba]

While at the local Post Office to rent a P.O. Box (yes, I left my gun in the truck) and filled out the paperwork and presented cash for payment and also presented my DL for identification, the nice lady ask for an insurance card. I must have had one of those stupid confused looks on my face while think, what does auto insurance have to do with a P.O. Box ????? She said that I needed 2 (count them, two) forms of ID. As it happens, my CHL is next up from under my DL, so I just pulled it out and handed it to her. She didn't spit nor sputter, just seemed to compare the information, smiled and handed it back. No tacky remarks, no stupid questions, no nasty looks :)

Maybe I just got lucky. LOL

[gigag04]

done that at a bank when cashing a check...not my first choice, but it worked.

[quidni]

I work for a State office, & even though our office is posted, we can accept a current CHL as a valid form of "state- or federally-issued" ID. After all, it is issued by the State of Texas, and it does include a photo.

[mschadt]

My campus bookstore requires 2 ID's if you're buying with a credit/debit card. Keep in mind this place is staffed year round by two people and then at the beginning and end of each semester they take on part timers from the local retirement community, because they're trustworthy and for the most part could use the money. However, after a week or two of dealing with the students they tend to become rather curt, I can’t blame them I’d go ape-$#!7 if I had to put with what they do. Well one day the lady at the checkout wasn't happy with my TxDL and campus ID so I had to bust out a third ID, yep you guessed it I used my CHL at the on campus bookstore. That was the most wonderful change of expression I had ever witnessed, from curt, to confused, to scared, to confused, to compliant, to super nice in nothing flat. I just grinned like the Cheshire cat. I should also note I haven’t been asked for so much as a second ID since, just asked to put my TxDL# on the receipt.

Edited to add: No I was not packing at the time.

[GrillKing]

While at the local Post Office to rent a P.O. Box (yes, I left my gun in the truck)

I thought even leaving your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot was a no-no. It's still federally controlled property. In my CHL class, we were told, don't even go on the parking lot or the drive through drop box lane with your weapon. It's a violation. It has nothing to do with the building, it's the entire property. Anyone know different?

[KBCraig]

While at the local Post Office to rent a P.O. Box (yes, I left my gun in the truck)

I thought even leaving your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot was a no-no. It's still federally controlled property. In my CHL class, we were told, don't even go on the parking lot or the drive through drop box lane with your weapon. It's a violation. It has nothing to do with the building, it's the entire property. Anyone know different?

Not unless they've posted the parking lot with the relevant federal statute.

The federal law requires notice to be posted to be effective. My PO doesn't have any kind of signage at the door, much less the parking lot.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

While at the local Post Office to rent a P.O. Box (yes, I left my gun in the truck)

I thought even leaving your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot was a no-no. It's still federally controlled property. In my CHL class, we were told, don't even go on the parking lot or the drive through drop box lane with your weapon. It's a violation. It has nothing to do with the building, it's the entire property. Anyone know different?

Not unless they've posted the parking lot with the relevant federal statute.

The federal law requires notice to be posted to be effective. My PO doesn't have any kind of signage at the door, much less the parking lot.

Kevin

I wonder where your instructor received his information. It is not part of the DPS instructor training......

[wrt45]

While at the local Post Office to rent a P.O. Box (yes, I left my gun in the truck)

I thought even leaving your gun in your vehicle in the parking lot was a no-no. It's still federally controlled property. In my CHL class, we were told, don't even go on the parking lot or the drive through drop box lane with your weapon. It's a violation. It has nothing to do with the building, it's the entire property. Anyone know different?

Not unless they've posted the parking lot with the relevant federal statute.

The federal law requires notice to be posted to be effective. My PO doesn't have any kind of signage at the door, much less the parking lot.

Kevin

I wonder where your instructor received his information. It is not part of the DPS instructor training......

It was definitely a part of my first instructor's school, and was discussed at some length. I can't recall if it has been mentioned in any of the renewal schools.

The relevant text comes from CFR 39, Ch 1, Part 232.1:

(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.

As I recall the discussion, it centered on the "official purpose" phrase and whether or not a CHL could be argued for under those terms. There is nothing there about posting requirements, although I have seen a little flyer in the post offices I use. The flyer has always been on the bulletin board along with about a thousand other notices.

At best, its another of those test cases.

I have talked about this with all my classes. Its also referenced on page 54 of the Texas Concealed Handgun License Training manual put out by the Texas Concealed Handgun Association.

[txinvestigator]

The relevant text comes from CFR 39, Ch 1, Part 232.1:

(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.

CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations. However, looking further down the regulation, we see the following:

(p) Penalties and other law.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated..

( abrogate
One entry found for abrogate.
Main Entry: ab·ro·gate
Pronunciation: 'a-br&-"gAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing
Etymology: Latin abrogatus, past participle of abrogare, from ab- + rogare to ask, propose a law -- more at RIGHT
1 : to abolish by authoritative action : ANNUL
2 : to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities>
synonym see NULLIFY )

Regulations in the CFR have to be based on laws in the United States Code, must be consistent with them, and cannot supercede them. Section (p)(2) of the 39 CFR 232.1 recognizes this fact. That is, the CFR cannot abrogate applicable Federal law.

In so far as firearms are concerned, 18 U.S.C. § 930 (a) is essentially the same as 39 CFR 232.1 (l), except that the regulations do not contain the exception for lawful concealed carry contained in 18 U.S.C. § 930 (d) (3). But by its own terms, the regulations do not override the United States Code ("Federal law)", which does allows carrying a firearm in federal facility.

In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.

Most of this is from "The gun zone" It is valuable reading; http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html


Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 930. - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

1. 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.
4. 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.

In order to fall within the exception to the law, two conditions have to be met. First, one has to be engaged in the "lawful carrying of firearms." This means you cannot be a "prohibited person" such as a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, or fall within any of the other categories that would prohibit one from lawfully purchasing or owning a firearm under federal law.

It also means that it must be legal for you to carry the firearm under any applicable federal, state, and local laws. If, for example, it is illegal under state law to carry a firearm in a post office, the exception in section (d) (3) of 18 U.S.C. § 930 offers you no protection. The same is true about any local regulations or restrictions on the terms of your carry permit. In other words, if state or local law, or the terms of your carry permit, prohibit carry in a post office, then such carry is not "lawful," and the exception to the ban on carrying in federal facilities does not apply to you.

The second condition that has to be met for one to fall within the exception to the ban on carrying a firearm in a federal facility is that one must be carrying in the facility "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." One cannot be in the facility with intent to commit a crime, or while committing a crime, and fall within the exception.

A simple test of whether one may legally carry in a post office could involve answering four questions:

1. Is it illegal for me to carry a handgun on the street outside the post office?
2. Is there a state or local law prohibiting carry in a post office?
3. Am I violating the terms of my CCW permit by carrying inside a post office?
4. Am I going to commit a crime or engage in some unlawful activity once inside the facility?

If one answers "no" to all four questions, it seems that one falls within the exception to the federal ban on carrying in a federal facility. The answer to the first three questions seeks to resolve whether one is engaged in the "lawful carrying" of a firearm. The answer to the final question seeks to resolve whether one is carrying "incident to ... lawful purposes."

It is important to note that the term "Federal facility" does not include a federal court facility. Even with a valid concealed weapon or handgun license, it is a federal offense to bring a firearm into a federal court facility. Under this statute, the only persons who may lawfully carry in a federal court facility are federal, state, or local law enforcement officers on official duty, or a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if authorized to possess the firearm.[/u]

[GrillKing]

In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.

The USC reference simply refers to lawful purposes w/o defining what that is or is not. The CFR could define that carry of a firearm is not lawful. I don't see that the CFR sections you referenced necessarily contradict the USC references. Am I missing something??? I am obviously not a lawyer...

Also is the posting requirement you referred to a post office only requirement or does it apply to all federal facilities. There are many federal facilities / properties that may not be posted and I'm pretty sure you are going to jail if you get caught carrying on them.

Due to my lack of thorough understanding of how federal carry may / may not be allowed, and I think it is most always is not allowed, my personal rule is no carry on federal property (incl PO parking lots) except for National Forests (and I haven't even done that just because I haven't been to a Nat Forest since I got my CHL.)

Everyone has their own risk quotient....

[KBCraig]

The federal law requires notice to be posted to be effective. My PO doesn't have any kind of signage at the door, much less the parking lot.

I wonder where your instructor received his information. It is not part of the DPS instructor training......

What instructor? I don't have a CHL. But I do have the law, namely 18 USC 930. You quoted part of it in another reply, but you stopped reading too soon:

18 USC 930 (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Like I said, the federal law requires notice to be given.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

The federal law requires notice to be posted to be effective. My PO doesn't have any kind of signage at the door, much less the parking lot.

I wonder where your instructor received his information. It is not part of the DPS instructor training......

What instructor? I don't have a CHL. But I do have the law, namely 18 USC 930. You quoted part of it in another reply, but you stopped reading too soon:

18 USC 930 (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Like I said, the federal law requires notice to be given.

Kevin

Ahhh, I actually meant to quote the post you quoted, so my comments were not directed at you. Sorry

[stevie_d_64]

In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.

Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 930. - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

1. 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.
4. 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.

In order to fall within the exception to the law, two conditions have to be met. First, one has to be engaged in the "lawful carrying of firearms." This means you cannot be a "prohibited person" such as a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, or fall within any of the other categories that would prohibit one from lawfully purchasing or owning a firearm under federal law.

It also means that it must be legal for you to carry the firearm under any applicable federal, state, and local laws. If, for example, it is illegal under state law to carry a firearm in a post office, the exception in section (d) (3) of 18 U.S.C. § 930 offers you no protection. The same is true about any local regulations or restrictions on the terms of your carry permit. In other words, if state or local law, or the terms of your carry permit, prohibit carry in a post office, then such carry is not "lawful," and the exception to the ban on carrying in federal facilities does not apply to you.

The second condition that has to be met for one to fall within the exception to the ban on carrying a firearm in a federal facility is that one must be carrying in the facility "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." One cannot be in the facility with intent to commit a crime, or while committing a crime, and fall within the exception.

A simple test of whether one may legally carry in a post office could involve answering four questions:

1. Is it illegal for me to carry a handgun on the street outside the post office?
2. Is there a state or local law prohibiting carry in a post office?
3. Am I violating the terms of my CCW permit by carrying inside a post office?
4. Am I going to commit a crime or engage in some unlawful activity once inside the facility?

If one answers "no" to all four questions, it seems that one falls within the exception to the federal ban on carrying in a federal facility. The answer to the first three questions seeks to resolve whether one is engaged in the "lawful carrying" of a firearm. The answer to the final question seeks to resolve whether one is carrying "incident to ... lawful purposes."

It is important to note that the term "Federal facility" does not include a federal court facility. Even with a valid concealed weapon or handgun license, it is a federal offense to bring a firearm into a federal court facility. Under this statute, the only persons who may lawfully carry in a federal court facility are federal, state, or local law enforcement officers on official duty, or a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if authorized to possess the firearm.[/u]

uh-ohhh...

So all this time that I go to visit a "friend" in a federal detention facility in Beaumont (they are in the "camp" facility) where I am not subject to a "stop" before I park my vehicle, go "into" the building facility to check in and conduct my visit...

I know before hand that it might not be a good thing to take a firearm inside, so if I leave it locked inside a safe, and then lock that inside a vehicle, is that not rendering the weapon "inacessable" to anyone who does not have the key to first get in the vehicle, much less the key to open the safe...

I have only heard, yet not confirmed, that if I do these two things, I can enter the property (premises) of that federal facility, not undergoing "any" scrutiny before I park my vehicle, lock everything up, and only take my drivers license, and some pocket change for the vending machines, and conduct my visit???

This is actually only going to matter for the next two months as they are due to be released in late March...I may visit one more time before then...

I for one would visit more, but I hate traveling "naked" if you know what I mean...

Kinda an interesting situation I have had to endure over the last couple of years...

[GrillKing]

18 USC 930 (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

I learn something new every day. On good days I learn 2 new things. The law may be on my side, but I still think carry on federal facilities is risky. I don't want to be the one to go to the expense of having to prove I'm right in court.

Thanks all for the information.

[stevie_d_64]

18 USC 930 (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

I learn something new every day. On good days I learn 2 new things. The law may be on my side, but I still think carry on federal facilities is risky. I don't want to be the one to go to the expense of having to prove I'm right in court.

Thanks all for the information.

See thats whats funny...The facility I am talking about is not posted (nor is it required I believe) with the state restriction...The USC Code is not posted anywhere leading up to or on the property line leading up to the detention center where we park when we visit...

Obviously, that fact is not a defense to the prosecution...Which is why I hate visiting, knowing I got to run around for half a day unarmed, because I cannot be trusted by the government to render my weapon "innaccessable" to any unpublished, or acceptable government standard...