Post Office Carry

[Charles L. Cotton]

(l) Weapons and explosives . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.

I have no idea what this means.

- Jim

The "notwithstanding . . ." language is intended to nullify any other statute or rule that would allow the carrying of a firearm on postal property. Similar language is used in legislation when the goal is to make sure there isn't some other statute that would impact the application of a particular law. The “notwithstanding� language is primarily used in areas that are subject to many different statutory provisions and amending all of them would be burdensome, or the chance of missing one is significant, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation.

Chas.

Charles,

Could you explain to us what "official purposes" means?

That phrase isn't defined, so the courts will look to common usage in the law. If there is no case law defining "official purposes," then the courts will look to common usage in the English language. 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. That said, I don’t know if this new CFR provision accomplishes that goal, as I haven’t looked at the enabling statutes (18 U.S.C. 13, 3061; 21 U.S.C. 802, 844; or 39 U.S.C. 401, 403(b)(3), 404(a)(7), 1201(2)) to see if the new CFR provision exceeds that authority or not.

Chas.

[GlockenHammer]

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.

[mr surveyor]

hhhmmmmmm.......

I always have a couple of 24 inch machetes in my tool box when I do the post office trip, as well as a couple of belt knives, hachets, maybe a snake charmer .....

[Photoman]

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.

Notice that in the amended code, 18 USC 930 is not used.

[Photoman]

For all this hooplah, it's still only a $50 fine.

Where can I find out more on this?

[Xander]

Not intending to be insenstiive or offend anyone but, It would seem that this rule is to protect the emplyees from other disgruntled employees.

LOL! Good point! Surely they wouldn't admit that though....After the phrase "Going Postal" became an accepted part of the vernacular, they *did* do a million dollar study to try and prove that postal employees are no more likely to shoot their co-workers than employees of any other business.

[NcongruNt]

Not intending to be insenstiive or offend anyone but, It would seem that this rule is to protect the emplyees from other disgruntled employees.

Then there's the point that a disgruntled postal employee intent on killing people is not likely to be swayed by a federal regulation saying he can't have his gun there. But we must make sure people can't defend themselves on federal property! Perhaps the $50 fine will deter him!

Makes perfect sense to me!

[KBCraig]

For all this hooplah, it's still only a $50 fine.

Where can I find out more on this?

The regulation is 39 CFR 232.1, and the "punishment" section reads:

(p) Penalties and other law.
(1) Alleged violations of these rules
and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are
imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate
in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such
rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region
involved.
(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.

[Xander]

Huh. Well in my mind, the $50 bit is no problem....30 days in jail on the other hand, would be a big problem.

[Photoman]

Not to mention the Federal "rap" sheet.

[cxm]

That would make the offense about the equilvalent of a Class C misdomeanor....

V/r

Chuck

For all this hooplah, it's still only a $50 fine.

Where can I find out more on this?

The regulation is 39 CFR 232.1, and the "punishment" section reads:

(p) Penalties and other law.
(1) Alleged violations of these rules
and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are
imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate
in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such
rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region
involved.
(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.

[seamusTX]

That would make the offense about the equilvalent of a Class C misdomeanor....

PC § 12.22. CLASS B MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class B misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $2,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed 180 days; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.

PC § 12.23. CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.

A 30-day term would be somewhere in between.

The important thing is that it would not be close to equivalent to a class A.

- Jim

[AEA]

Regardless of all this Bull.....I do and will continue to carry in the Post Office!
With all the Postal Murders, I am more likely to have to defend myself in the Post Office than anywhere else!

[Crossfire]

With all the Postal Murders, I am more likely to have to defend myself in the Post Office than anywhere else!

Unless you hang out in schools...

[DaveT]

Let me throw a couple of monkey wrenches into the mix....

1) The local Post Office in our small town of 1300 people is located in a building leased by the P.O., it is NOT owned by the P.O. The parking lot is shared with the school consortium administrative office that is next door.

Is the parking lot off limits ?

2) There is an alley that runs between a plumber's shop and a grocery store on one side, the Post Office on the other side. The Post Office has a drop box that faces the alley, it is used as a 'drive thru' to drop mail into the box.

Is the Alley off limits ?