Moderator: carlson1
A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights.
Mizelle said that while post offices have existed since the nation's founding, federal law did not bar guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said.
At the moment it impacts only the jurisdiction of the circuit in which the ruling was issued. More narrowly, it only has immediate effect on the case, since there wasn't an injunction issued against the law itself, only a dismissal of the specific charge against 1 person.
I hope I'm wrong as well!
Full statute here:,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
The application of 930 to post office parking lots is via case law.
I appreciate your positive energy on this Tom!
Please help a guy who is a slow thinker. The USPS has to post 30.06/07 to keep you out?RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:53 pmI hope I'm wrong as well!
I found out today that I WAS wrong about the parking lot having to be posted... I thought it did not, but, apparently it DOES need to be posted, as does the building, in order for gun possession to be off limits...
From another forum...Full statute here:,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
The application of 930 to post office parking lots is via case law.I appreciate your positive energy on this Tom!
I didn't think those applied to government property.30.06/07
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930....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
....The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
Thank you my friend. I am always confused about the Post Office. Can I even go to my dentist that is in the same store front location, etc?Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:07 pm 30.06/07 does not apply to federal facilities as it is part of Texas law. Federal law is something else entirely:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930....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
....The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
There is some room under (d)(3) that suggests that "incident to ... lawful purposes" is ok, so I think this battle can be won nationwide if the courts are reasonable.
Plainly the Federally owned or leased building is prohibited... my understanding is the parking lot of a dedicated federal facility is prohibited... but could only speculate about a shared facility. I would think only the federally owned or leased portion would be affected, but that would be a matter for the lawyers.carlson1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:15 pmThank you my friend. I am always confused about the Post Office. Can I even go to my dentist that is in the same store front location, etc?Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:07 pm 30.06/07 does not apply to federal facilities as it is part of Texas law. Federal law is something else entirely:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930....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
....The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
There is some room under (d)(3) that suggests that "incident to ... lawful purposes" is ok, so I think this battle can be won nationwide if the courts are reasonable.
Not 30.0x...
The posted sign would reference 18 USC 930... At national parks, the signs look like this.... But I've never seen any similar sign at my local PO.(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.
