Concealed carry in a post office without posted signs

[Djonson211]

There is a post office that I go to in Amarillo that only has a sign posted by the counter of the post office. They do not even have the posted signs for the search of anything on the premed is as they are required to. Any thoughts? Specifically since they are it abiding by the regulations?

[Djonson211]

That post had misspelling in it. The premises do not have the search signs posted. They are not in compliance with the statues they are supposed to be following. Any thoughts?

[Javier730]

Post offices are off limits. They do not need signs as they are federal property. You cant even be armed in the parking lot.

[Djonson211]

The USC code states they SHALL have signs posted. Not arguing just curious.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The USC code states they SHALL have signs posted. Not arguing just curious.

Not only signs, but specific signs. I've addressed this issue for a governmental employee several years back, so I don't recall the specific signs required, or the cite to the U.S. Code.

Chas.

[mr1337]

The USC code states they SHALL have signs posted. Not arguing just curious.

Not only signs, but specific signs. I've addressed this issue for a governmental employee several years back, so I don't recall the specific signs required, or the cite to the U.S. Code.

Chas.

18 USC 930

(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.

That being said, I wouldn't touch federal property with a 10-foot-pole while carrying, even with invalid/lack of signage.

[jmorris]

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
......
(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.

I once asked a Federal Protective Service officer what the underlined part meant to him and his reply was "have you ever heard that a federal building was off limits? That's good enough." My thought was, prove that I have.

But it's actually 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l ), which covers the post office:

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.

Nothing in 232 requires signage that I've seen.

[mr1337]

While we're on the subject, would licensed concealed carry fall under 18 USC 930 (d)(3) where it states: Subsection (a) shall not apply to— the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

I know one of the district courts have ruled against post office carry, but why would licensed concealed carry for the lawful purpose of self defense not apply under "other lawful purposes"?

[rotor]

So I guess by the time you got to the front door and saw the "shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility" you would already be guilty because you were in the parking lot which is not posted. Two questions, people without CHL (MPA) but with a firearm in their glovebox drive to the post office and park- are they in violation? How technically do you define the parking lot boundaries? Has anyone ever seen a sign at their post office? I can't say that I have. ( that was three questions).

[Charles L. Cotton]

CFR's cannot exceed the authority granted to the agency in the enabling statute, nor can they conflict with the enabling statute. Notice is required on post office property.

Chas.

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS
Sec. 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
......
(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.

I once asked a Federal Protective Service officer what the underlined part meant to him and his reply was "have you ever heard that a federal building was off limits? That's good enough." My thought was, prove that I have.

But it's actually 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l ), which covers the post office:

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.

Nothing in 232 requires signage that I've seen.

[Charles L. Cotton]

While we're on the subject, would licensed concealed carry fall under 18 USC 930 (d)(3) where it states: Subsection (a) shall not apply to— the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

I know one of the district courts have ruled against post office carry, but why would licensed concealed carry for the lawful purpose of self defense not apply under "other lawful purposes"?

No! Below is a post from a rather lengthy discussion on the Post Office issue.
Chas.

I wish them luck too, but they sure played fast and loose with 18 U.S.C. 930(c) when they state The law cited by the Post Office creates an exception for “lawful carrying of firearms” for “other lawful purposes." NAGR left out two very important words "incident to." (The Code Section in question is quoted below.) The subpart (c) exception to the general rule against carrying firearms in federal facilities applies to firearms that are "incident to" lawful hunting or other lawful purposes. We can replace the words "incident to" with "necessary for" and you get a clearer picture.

Firearms are required for hunting (except bow season) unless you are really really fast and can run down your prey and stab it, so they are "incident to" lawful hunting. The same cannot be said for a CHL carrying in a post office. Having a gun on your side is not "incident to" any other lawful purpose such as buying stamps, shipping a package, checking a PO box, or anything else you're going to do in a post office. Some have argued that you are carrying it "incident to" lawful self-defense, but this argument fails because you are not engaged in self-defense when you walk into a Post Office. You are prepared to engage in self-defense if attacked, but you are not engaged in the act of self-defense when you enter the post office. The only way 18 U.S.C. 930(c) would apply is if you are attacked and flee into a PO with your handgun. Then you are actively engaged in the lawful act of self-defense.

The best argument will be Heller's recognition of the Second Amendment as an individual right and its dicta noting that self-defense is a natural and constitutionally protected right.

There is a great lesson for all activists; don't overstate our case and don't exaggerate the opposition's position. Doing so not only deceives "our people," it hurts our credibility to the vast majority of Americans who are not members of the NRA or the Brady Campaign. I have won a lot of trials because I caught a witness in a lie or an exaggeration. Once you show a jury they can't be trusted, you've taken a giant step toward winning the case, even if the facts are less than favorable for your client.

Chas.

(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

(Emphasis added).

[Javier730]

Maybe OCT will help change that too.

[mr1337]

While we're on the subject, would licensed concealed carry fall under 18 USC 930 (d)(3) where it states: Subsection (a) shall not apply to— the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

I know one of the district courts have ruled against post office carry, but why would licensed concealed carry for the lawful purpose of self defense not apply under "other lawful purposes"?

No! Below is a post from a rather lengthy discussion on the Post Office issue.
Chas.

I wish them luck too, but they sure played fast and loose with 18 U.S.C. 930(c) when they state The law cited by the Post Office creates an exception for “lawful carrying of firearms” for “other lawful purposes." NAGR left out two very important words "incident to." (The Code Section in question is quoted below.) The subpart (c) exception to the general rule against carrying firearms in federal facilities applies to firearms that are "incident to" lawful hunting or other lawful purposes. We can replace the words "incident to" with "necessary for" and you get a clearer picture.

Firearms are required for hunting (except bow season) unless you are really really fast and can run down your prey and stab it, so they are "incident to" lawful hunting. The same cannot be said for a CHL carrying in a post office. Having a gun on your side is not "incident to" any other lawful purpose such as buying stamps, shipping a package, checking a PO box, or anything else you're going to do in a post office. Some have argued that you are carrying it "incident to" lawful self-defense, but this argument fails because you are not engaged in self-defense when you walk into a Post Office. You are prepared to engage in self-defense if attacked, but you are not engaged in the act of self-defense when you enter the post office. The only way 18 U.S.C. 930(c) would apply is if you are attacked and flee into a PO with your handgun. Then you are actively engaged in the lawful act of self-defense.

The best argument will be Heller's recognition of the Second Amendment as an individual right and its dicta noting that self-defense is a natural and constitutionally protected right.

There is a great lesson for all activists; don't overstate our case and don't exaggerate the opposition's position. Doing so not only deceives "our people," it hurts our credibility to the vast majority of Americans who are not members of the NRA or the Brady Campaign. I have won a lot of trials because I caught a witness in a lie or an exaggeration. Once you show a jury they can't be trusted, you've taken a giant step toward winning the case, even if the facts are less than favorable for your client.

Chas.

(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

(Emphasis added).

Thanks for the explanation. I knew it was illegal, but I just didn't understand why that clause didn't make it legal.

[Topbuilder]

Post offices are off limits. They do not need signs as they are federal property. You cant even be armed in the parking lot.

Unless your Post Office is in a strip mall or they do not own the parking lot.

[Djonson211]

Thank you for that explanation. So not as to argue, but ask a valid question. The Second Amendment does not apply on Federal Property? The right to bear arms, and specifically; to carry a concealed firearm in Texas with a valid license, is not allowed? Because we know criminals obey laws.