TexasCHLforum.com

waffenmacht wrote:I have posted on my experience here before. I did chat with the postmaster of Palmer, Tx... yeah I know, small town, but he has over 20 years experience. Apparently, this issue has never been brought to him, in any of his previous training. First of all, we know some firearms can be carried into a post office. That is a fact! The post office has written procedures which allow a civilian to carry a concealed firearm into the building. Such as someone shipping a shotgun, or rifle. Thats a firearm, being carried into a post office, concealed in a box. Also, cops can carry there. Im sure that's not disputed. The question really is, does my CHL apply there? Well, the postmaster I talked with thought it would be fine because i was "licenced". He was funny when he said " If you are carrying concealed, how would I know"?
-The truth is, until this gets tested in a court of law, this old dead horse will continue to recieve blows, and well I just got another kick in.
-Bruce

Key word being "THOUGHT". Doesn't exactly sound like a legal endorsement to me.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:
Just because you hold it as fact, does not make it fact.

You really know how to throw up a convincing response. Keep up those salient posts and you just might convert me.

NOT.

The facts are that you decide not to carry because the rules are vague at best and you do not want to be the test case because you have a fear of being discovered if you concealed (key word here) carry. Nowhere on this thread or any forum I have viewed is there any example of anyone ever being prosecuted for carrying in a post office. I have not done any in-depth searches on the subject but since it is not my side of the argument I really don't care.

Then there is the post where a postmaster agreed with me.

Since you have not posted any substantiating evidence it is obvious to me that your posts are just opinions supporting your actions.

Regards,

Anygunanywhere

So just because no one has been prosecuted for post office carry you think your opinion is fact? If you want to carry in a post office that is your business, but I have a problem with you telling others that it is legal and presenting your opinion as fact in that matter.

Your rationale about post office carry is nothing more than an opinion. You do not have any facts that support that post office carry is legal. Someone else used the opinion of a post master of a small town. The post master said he THOUGHT it would be fine, he didn't say it was legal according to the poster. The FACT of the matter that there has been more evidence presented in this thread pointing to post office carry being illegal rather than legal.

It seems your whole argument revolves around not getting caught, a postmaster who THINKS it would be fine, and section 18, yet ignoring CFR 39. I have posted several links to articles suggesting post office carry is illegal, you have posted nothing to support your opinion, except your own interpretation of the matter. Since you are stating your opinion as fact the burden falls to you to PROVE that post office carry is legal.

anygunanywhere wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:
I agree that carry should not be banned in the post office and that the federal government has overstepped their bounds, but talking about "how things should be" really doesn't answer the question in the original post as to whether it is legal to carry in the post office. You can say "the 2nd Amendment does this" or the "2nd Amendment does that" all day long but until the federal courts rule that the law banning carry is unconstitutional or Congress changes the law, it's really a moot point in the discussion as to whether someone will get arrested or not.

Did you actually read all of the posts or did you just decide to critique my second amendment infringement assertions? I answered the original post with what I hold as fact. I did not review all of my posts on this thread but in no way are all of them based solely on 2A infringement.

Anygunanywhere

Just because you hold it as fact, does not make it fact.

KBCraig wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I carry where I am allowed to carry.

In light of that statement, your choice of moniker is interesting.

I believe in the right to carry, but at this time the LAW only allows us to carry in certain places. Are you advocating breaking the law?

anygunanywhere wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:
What happens if.....

You keep countering with the "What ifs" that result in getting caught.

Instead of What Iffing your way into getting caught why not What If your way into carrying?

What happens if you need your handgun in a post office and since you don't have it you die? When you are bleeding on the floor is a bad time to be regretting your decision to carry.

The odds of that happening are greater than having it and never needing it. Everytime you carry and don't need it you beat those odds.

How many times have you read about shootings in gun free zones?

There are gun free zones where the act of committing a felony by not complying with the reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws makes sense.

To me, the post office decision does not even come close.

Anygunanywhere

I carry where I am allowed to carry. At this time I believe it is illegal to carry into a post office. Part of getting my CHL is that I agreed to abide by the laws of said license. I don't look for grey area's and I don't measure 30.06 signs to see if they meet the exact requirements prescribed by the law, it is a losing proposition in the long run. I see the comments about well it's only 50.00 dollars and 30 days in jail if caught. Well you know what, explain to your employer why you missed 30 days of work and see how understanding he is.

If your intent was to circumvent or ignore the laws why even get a CHL, you could have done that without a CHL after all the chances of getting caught are extremely remote, right? Concealed is Concealed correct?

I would love to be able to carry anywhere and anytime, but unfortunately at this time the state has decided that it will not allow me to carry in certain area's along with the federal government. I might not agree with the rules but until they are changed I will do my best to abide by them and for me that means not going into places that are posted. I won't disarm unless I absolutely have to, and if a place is posted I just take my business elsewhere. That for me is the simplest solution.

Mr.Scott wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:There are those who feel (as opposed to think) that all signs that resemble 30.06 are valid thus honoring the poster's intent even though the law has the word "exactly".

With so much murky gray garbled language in the rulles I will protect myself, thanks.

Anygunanywhere

I'm siding with you on this. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. If I have to use it and defend myself, I'd rather pay a $50 fine and sit in jail for 30 days, than to be put 6 feet under. If something happens and someone slips and falls, guess what. I don't have to stick around and wait for a cop to show up to take a report. I'll continue my business and leave. They have camera's all over the place and they can get their report from there.

What happens if you slip and fall? Maybe you get knocked out? Again it may not be just the 50.00 fine and 30 days in jail you have to worry about. If the interpretation of the other thread is correct and you violated CFR 39 then you also violated 18 USC since you no longer have lawful purpose. As someone else has said on here, you may beat the rap but you are going to take the ride. My time and money are much better spent not having to deal with the issue when there is no clear opinion on whether Postal Carry is legal.

Another great thread dealing with carrying in a post office. At least from my research it appears the majority of people believe that Post Office Carry is not legal. It appears that most of the confusion stems from which law, regulation, or rule takes precedence. In the below thread it is the opinion that since 39 CFR 232.1 is a postal rule, once you violate that rule, then you can no longer have authority to carry under 18 U.S.C. 930 since you are no longer there under lawful purpose due to the violation of 39 CFR 232.1. All these opinions and no one can come up with a definitive yes or no. This IMHO is one of the problems with the system.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/sho ... fice+carry

Mike1951 wrote:If the 'law' or 'rule' were actually practical, allowing the firearm to remain in the parked vehicle, I might adhere.

But if I'm going to be in violation anyway, then my carry will remain concealed, ON ME, inside the post office.

Besides, I have always believed the 'lawful purposes' exemption and continue to do so.

IANAL, but isn't it true the CFR codes do not have force of law unless reciprocated in the USC?

If so, I think the $50 fine is correct but I do not agree with the 30 day possible jail sentence.

If you read the following link he explains why title 18 does not apply to CHLer's and CFR 39 does.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conceale ... -awakening

Mike1951 wrote:If the 'law' or 'rule' were actually practical, allowing the firearm to remain in the parked vehicle, I might adhere.

But if I'm going to be in violation anyway, then my carry will remain concealed, ON ME, inside the post office.

Besides, I have always believed the 'lawful purposes' exemption and continue to do so.

IANAL, but isn't it true the CFR codes do not have force of law unless reciprocated in the USC?

If so, I think the $50 fine is correct but I do not agree with the 30 day possible jail sentence.

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.

(q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon.

(2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d)(3) and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a manner that will protect Postal Service property.

(3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.

What is interesting is that the decision came down after Heller. There is opinion that CFR 39 is the overriding Code. I am not a lawyer I am just trying to get a handle on this post office stuff and there seems to be some new information out there to look at. Although the case involved a postal worker CFR 39 covers anyone on postal property and specifically bans concealed weapons.

I just discovered this MEMORANDUM OPINION REJECTING DEFENDANT’s SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE WITH RESPECT TO POSTAL REGULATION 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) BANNING WEAPONS ON POSTAL PROPERTY from UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

http://volokh.com/files/dorosan.pdf

It is 14 pages long and I don't think I have the room to paste all 14 pages hence the link above.

I found this interesting in the memorandum: The United States emphasizes that the Postal Service
utilizes both 18 U.S.C. § 930 (a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) in tandem to effect workplace and
public safety on United States Postal Service property.

I found this and although it deals with Ohio concealed carry the argument still stands as Postal Regulations are the same across the United States. Interesting reading for those that think you can carry in a Post office. He brings up some very valid points for why it is illegal to carry in a post office.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conceale ... -awakening

Concealed-carry in a post office may lead to rude awakening

By Ken Hanson, Esq.
Legislative Chair
Buckeye Firearms Association

There is considerable confusion over whether an Ohio Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL) can carry a concealed firearm at the post office. This confusion mostly centers around the wording on the signs posted at the post office. The signs quote two sections of federal regulation - 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1.

Looking at 18 USC 930, it would appear, at first blush, that carrying firearms is prohibited. That section provides:

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

Release date: 2004-08-06

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.

So part of the confusion is rooted in the wording of this section. The prohibition applies to "Federal facilit(ies)" except as provide for in subsection (d). Subsection (d) provides:

(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.

Many people have seized upon (d)(3) with the argument that they have a CHL, so their carrying of a firearm is an "other lawful purpose" and therefore they are exempt from the sign. This is problematic for several reasons. First, 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;

Thus it would appear, by operation of 39 USC 410, that 18 USC 930, a law that deals generally with Federal property, does not apply to the Powers of the Postal Service. Rather, the only provisions of 18 USC that would apply are those specific to the post office e.g. Theft of Mail, Robbing Post Offices, Stealing Postal Money Orders etc. Further evidence of the proposition that 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices is in the numbering of the aforementioned 39 CFR 232.1. As we will later examine, 39 CFR 232.1 clearly prohibits carrying firearms. CFR sections typically draw their numbering from the underlying laws that they are promulgated under, although there are numerous exceptions. The numbering of 39 CFR would be further evidence that 39 USC controls the situation, and not 18 USC.

The second problem with relying on 18 USC 930(d)(3) is that this section in no way EMPOWERS anyone to carry a gun; rather, that section simply states that 18 USC 930 does not apply to someone is lawfully carrying a gun incident to some lawful purpose. In Ohio's law, there is a big difference between something NOT BEING PROHIBITED and something BEING SPECIFICALLY LICENSED. Just because a statute says that certain conduct is not prohibited by that particular statute does not automatically equate into authority to engage in the conduct.

This is an important distinction, because the other part of the post office sign cites 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.
The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "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." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.

First, as we previously examined, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, as we previously examined, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

This being the case, at a minimum, we have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. That being the case, an Ohio CHL is prohibited from carrying at the post office by Ohio's criminal trespass. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that the Ohio CHL would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.

I do not want to be right about the answer to this question, because I personally see no problem with a CHL carrying in a post office. However, I think some of the information/discussion going on in forums has the potential to expose the Ohio CHL to a rude awakening.

DoubleJ wrote:I think soemthing to keep in mind (you know, before this dead horse thread devolves and gets shut down) is the penalty for breaking this law, no wait, it ain't even a law, it's a Post Office rule.
anyone got a link to the code that says what happens if you break the rule. something like a $50 fine?

And a maximum of 30 days in jail.

This has been discussed here before. If you ever frequent any of the other gun discussion boards like The High Road and The Firing Line there are ample discussion threads there as well. This thread is NOT the first time this has ever been discussed and I am not the only individual who holds this point of view.

I do not consider myself some kind of ambassador for the CHL community. I am a free man who actually believes that the second amendment means what it says, the second amendment applies to the federal government and ALL of the bazillions of administrations and other bureaucratic subdivisions, and where faced with obvious fuzzy laws I will take measures to protect myself.

If you consider yourself as an ambassador for the CHL community then by all means take the ambassadorship by the handle and git after it.

Anygunanywhere

You are correct that it has been discussed many times, and I think your opinion on the matter is in the minority. The decisions we make are the ones we have to live with and those decisions come with consequences. If you can live with those consequences more power to you.

mr.72 wrote:

Right2Carry wrote: Part of being an ambassador to the CHL Community is obeying all the laws whether we agree with them or not.

Anygun's point seems to be that the law allows carrying a firearm for lawful purposes, so since a CHL constitutes a lawful purpose then it is legal.

I think the post office thing is a very gray area for a number of reasons.

I understand what his point is, but I don't think he is correct in his interpretation of the law. I have yet to see Charles or anyone else take that position on this issue.