TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 12:15 am I love the Bruin decision more every day!

Question for our legal experts: what is the impact of this for us (assuming it stands). Is it limited to only a certain geographic region, or does it impact the full US?

carlson1 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:37 am Roy I sure love you, but I hope so much you are wrong.

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.

tomneal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:40 am These decisions are cumulative.

Every one of them on our side, makes the next one easier for the next judge to rule in our favor.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:53 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:37 am Roy I sure love you, but I hope so much you are wrong.

I 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.

tomneal wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:40 am These decisions are cumulative.

Every one of them on our side, makes the next one easier for the next judge to rule in our favor.

I appreciate your positive energy on this Tom!

30.06/07

....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.

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:

....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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

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.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:15 pm

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:

....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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

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.

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?

carlson1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:19 pm Please help a guy who is a slow thinker. The USPS has to post 30.06/07 to keep you out?

(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.