Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have no idea if "official purposes" has any history in case law, but my guess is that it applies to armed people (LEOs) on postal property for specifically for law enforcement purposes. Technically, this would not include a COP stopping to check his PO box, or to purchase stamps, but it would include a COP or postal inspector on the premises to investigate a crime, or to write a ticket in the post office parking lot.
Someone apparently pushed the issue about “other lawful purposes� in the United States Code and the Postal Service took steps to make it clear that “other lawful purposes� doesn’t include a CHL being armed on post office property.
I respect your opinion, but I still think that this is open for interpretation when it comes to CHL. Unless there is language somewhere that specifically speaks to LEO, I don't see an inherent difference between a State licensing a LEO to carry a weapon and licensing a judge, security guard or private citizen to carry a weapon. Of course, there is virtually no way to resolve this difference of opinion unless one can find official language referencing LEOs, etc. And no, I don't want to be the test case.
But this isn't just about guns. Keep in mind also folks that this regulation applies equally to your pocket knife with a blade longer than 2-1/2 inches (18 USC 930 definition). And since the Postal Regulation applies to the parking lot as well as the building,
having a leatherman in your truck tool box is just as illegal as carrying your 1911 up to the front desk, so these minor details on interpretation can be important.
I wish that they would just come out and say what they mean instead of using this ambiguous language.