Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

[mojo84]

We tell students, if you only carry when you think you will need it, you better be good at predicting the future. :)

Are you a CHL instructor and do you tell students it's legal to carry into the post office?

[thetexan]

You guys are getting 232 mixed up with 930 again. The post office has it's own rule superseding 930 covering general federal facilities. You can't carry a firearm into a post office and it has nothing to do with being incident to hunting which is found only and applicable to general federal facilities. There is really nothing to debate about post offices. 232 is clear.

Tex

[Charles L. Cotton]

You guys are getting 232 mixed up with 930 again. The post office has it's own rule superseding 930 covering general federal facilities. You can't carry a firearm into a post office and it has nothing to do with being incident to hunting which is found only and applicable to general federal facilities. There is really nothing to debate about post offices. 232 is clear.

Tex

I'm not getting anything mixed up. I'm discussing 18 USC 930 because it's routinely cited as authority to carry in a post office. The problem with trying to extend the incident to hunting or any other lawful activity is faulty for the reasons I stated, regardless of the type of federal property at issue. You discussed 930 also.

Chas.

[thetexan]

I apologize for what must be confusion on my part. I understand that people want to use 930 to argue their position that carrying in a post office is or should be or ought to be or wish it could be legal. And I understand why there is confusion since a post office is a federal facility. I guess I must be missing something. I thought we have (or should have) long since moved on from that argument since 232 is clear and 410 insulates 232 from the effects of 930.

I also, I believe, understand that some people don't get that. It seems that 930 should have no place in a 232 discussion other than to explain why 930 doesn't apply since it is only confusing to many. If people want to debate carrying a firearm into a federal building such as a veterans administration building or social security office then we can get into 930's hunting, other lawful purposes, and being incident thereto.

It seems that after 14 pages of replies we are still discussing post offices as if they are governed by 930.

By the way, regarding 930, it has occurred to me that one point of confusion due to terms might be this...while carrying a handgun may be a legal activity or a legal privilege, can that, in and of itself, be defined as a legal purpose (for application to 930). In other words, I may be able to carry a gun legally but do I have a legally acceptable purpose for legally carrying my gun? But then I ask myself can't the same be said for a hunting rifle? Of course, it can. So we go back to the word 'other'. Clearly 'hunting' is considered a purpose as there are 'other' lawful purposes implied. The rule could have just as easily been written '...firearms and other dangerous weapons incident to any lawful purpose including hunting' which could have been further distilled to '...incident to any lawful purpose.' Whatever it is about hunting that makes hunting a lawful purpose is the same test we must apply to other lawful purposes else logic fails. That bears
repeating...whatever legal characteristic about the activity of hunting makes it a lawful purpose, that same characteristic must be applied to other activities to qualify them as a lawful purpose in the mechanism of this statute.

Respectfully, I seem to be getting confused about the debate since there have been examples given like how a handgun has nothing to do with buying stamps...as if a hunting rifle does...in a debate about post offices which are governed by a rule that has nothing to do with hunting or being incident to hunting. I know there has been plenty of effort to untangle 232 and 930.

Maybe we can start over. You cannot carry in a post office....period, 232. No, 930 has nothing to do with post offices since 410 says 930 has nothing to do with post offices. Isn't it really that simple.

Tex

[Keith B]

Here is a very good breakdown of not being able to carry in a Post Office, and the two rules listed. The author is also an attorney and legislative chair for the Buckeye Firearms Association

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/conceale ... -awakening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jumping Frog]

Here is a very good breakdown of not being able to carry in a Post Office, and the two rules listed. The author is also an attorney and legislative chair for the Buckeye Firearms Association

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/conceale ... -awakening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ken Hanson also points out a huge difference in state law, with Texas the better choice.

In Texas, there is no state law specific to federal facilities, so a person violating 39 CFR 232.1 is subject to the penalties provided under that federal regulation (up to a $50 fine and up to 30 days in jail).

In Ohio, state law (ORC 2923.126(B)) lists places that are prohibited by statute (schools, courts, jails, government facilities, etc.). Unfortunately, that statute also explicitly lists "A place in which federal law prohibits the carrying of handguns". Having a loaded handgun in all of those places is a felony in Ohio. That means in Ohio, a person carrying into a post office faces a federal $50 fine plus an Ohio felony.

[switch]

If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.

You carry a gun because you might find something to shoot when you hunt. I carry a gun because I might need to shoot someone/something for self-defense. You have to carry a gun 100% of the time while hunting because you might need it. You have to carry a gun 100% because you might need it for self-defense.

The fact that said need in a PO is statistically minor is irrelevant. Actually, it is pretty insignificant everywhere I go. If it was not, I would not go there.

Is it legal to carry in a PO? Yes! Could I prove that in a court of law? Probably not. Could I afford to litigate it? Definitely not. There are a lot of acts that were deemed illegal until the USSC said the law was unconstitutional. Many of those laws were not as ambiguous as the phrase 'incident to other legal activity'.

I think we can all agree that self-defense is a legal activity. In fact, it is legal to use a gun for self-defense in many areas where it is illegal to have a gun - and usually, you are not prosecuted for having it there. I think most of us here would agree that having a gun is preferable for self-defense.

I recognize that most federal LEO and fed prosecutors would not agree w/me.

[Keith B]

If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.

You carry a gun because you might find something to shoot when you hunt. I carry a gun because I might need to shoot someone/something for self-defense. You have to carry a gun 100% of the time while hunting because you might need it. You have to carry a gun 100% because you might need it for self-defense.

The fact that said need in a PO is statistically minor is irrelevant. Actually, it is pretty insignificant everywhere I go. If it was not, I would not go there.

Is it legal to carry in a PO? Yes! Could I prove that in a court of law? Probably not. Could I afford to litigate it? Definitely not. There are a lot of acts that were deemed illegal until the USSC said the law was unconstitutional. Many of those laws were not as ambiguous as the phrase 'incident to other legal activity'.

I think we can all agree that self-defense is a legal activity. In fact, it is legal to use a gun for self-defense in many areas where it is illegal to have a gun - and usually, you are not prosecuted for having it there. I think most of us here would agree that having a gun is preferable for self-defense.

I recognize that most federal LEO and fed prosecutors would not agree w/me.

Sorry, you are incorrect, and you proved you are with your second statement.

[mojo84]

If you can't afford to litigate it to "prove " it's legal, I suspect you can't afford to defend yourself in a professional liability claim for giving wrong information in your class from someone that follows your bad advice.

You are passing of what you think should be legal for what is legal and that is wrong.

[Misfit Child]

The highest law in America is crystal clear on the subject. If some want to deny it, that's their First Amendment right as long as it's just talk. If it crosses over into force or threats of imminent force, Uncle Sam taught me how to deal with that.

[thetexan]

If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.

You carry a gun because you might find something to shoot when you hunt. I carry a gun because I might need to shoot someone/something for self-defense. You have to carry a gun 100% of the time while hunting because you might need it. You have to carry a gun 100% because you might need it for self-defense.

The fact that said need in a PO is statistically minor is irrelevant. Actually, it is pretty insignificant everywhere I go. If it was not, I would not go there.

Is it legal to carry in a PO? Yes! Could I prove that in a court of law? Probably not. Could I afford to litigate it? Definitely not. There are a lot of acts that were deemed illegal until the USSC said the law was unconstitutional. Many of those laws were not as ambiguous as the phrase 'incident to other legal activity'.

I think we can all agree that self-defense is a legal activity. In fact, it is legal to use a gun for self-defense in many areas where it is illegal to have a gun - and usually, you are not prosecuted for having it there. I think most of us here would agree that having a gun is preferable for self-defense.

I recognize that most federal LEO and fed prosecutors would not agree w/me.

At the risk of beating a dead horse...any discussion concerning carrying a handgun in a post office because of hunting, self-defense, or any other lawful purpose is irrelevant. When you are prosecuted for carrying a weapon in a post office the prosecutor will only have to prove these things...
1. that the device was a firearm, dangerous or deadly weapon, or an explosive
2. that the actor did carry the device while on postal property, or store it on postal property
3. that the device was carried openly or concealed
4. that the actor did so while not for official purposes.
5. that, if challenged by defense, there are no other superseding or governing applicable regulations or statutes relevant to the issue before the court

39 CFR 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. and 39 USC 410

Not once will the prosecutor deal with the act from the standpoint of self-defense. The subject wont come up except by your defense attorney as he struggles to come up with some reason to try to get you acquitted. Once the prosecutor has proven those 5 points he has proven his case against you, that being, that you violated 39 CFR 232.1(l) (he wont even ask you if you were hunting!)

The rule concerning carrying at a post office is cut and dried. 18USC930 is also as it concerns carrying at general federal facilities.

Everytime someone starts to mention self-defense, hunting, or some other lawful purpose as a reason to carry at a post office they should pause and say to themselves "oooops, wrong discussion".

tex

ps. The good thing about this discussion is that we all will be much more expert at what the rules state than when we began.

[tbrown]

We tell students, if you only carry when you think you will need it, you better be good at predicting the future. :)

QFT

When I started carrying, I often questioned whether I should disarm. Now the question is where I should go instead.

[mojo84]

The highest law in America is crystal clear on the subject. If some want to deny it, that's their First Amendment right as long as it's just talk. If it crosses over into force or threats of imminent force, Uncle Sam taught me how to deal with that.

Let us know how that works for you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.

You want to equate preparation for an activity with engaging in the activity. They are distinctly different actions.

Being prepared to defend yourself is not "engaging in self-defense." I have a fire extinguisher in my home, but I'm not engaged in fighting a fire "24-7." I'm not engaging in fighting a fire until I pull the pin and start putting out a fire. I have anti-acid in my medicine cabinet in case I need it, but I'm not engaging in treating heartburn "24-7."

Chas.

[MeMelYup]

Could the outcome of Palmer vs D.C. Have an effect on this? http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/image ... .order.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;