USPS poster regarding firearms

[NAVY CHIEF]

Don't know if this is posted elsewhere. I noticed this sign on the interior of my Post Office here in Blanco. Has anyone else seen this anywhere? I don't think I saw it at the Marble Falls PO, when I mailed off my pkg to DPS on Monday.

[joe817]

Since the Post Office is a Federal Building that seems reasonable to me.

I was in downtown Fort Worth in July, and inside the IRS office was a similar type sign, quoting federal regulations.

[boomerang]

I think they have similar rules for bibles.

[dicion]

Under Current law, post offices are about the greyest of grey areas...

See this for more information:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 15#p307198" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically, there's a federal law that says you can't carry in a post office, unless it directly contradicts local law, then local law wins.
The question is, is 30.06(e) a direct contradiction to the federal law? I do believe so, however, chances are you'd have to go to court to prove this.

As they say, IANAL, concealed is concealed, and you feel free to proceed as far as your pocketbook can afford a lawyer.

[Purplehood]

My local post office has the same sign, and I honor it, albeit reluctantly.

[mr.72]

It is "the greyest of grey areas" as dicion aptly put it simply because the intent of these signs as well as the kind of party line, word on the street, etc. seems to indicate it is forbidden to carry on the Post Office property, but clearly the law explicitly and directly conflicts the common conception.

If you ask most CHL holders if they think you can carry in the Post Office, almost all of them who confess to know the answer will likely say "no, you cannot". But the law is seemingly both explicit and clear. If the Post Office is a governmental entity, they cannot forbid you from carrying. The very CFR that attempts to forbid carry in the Post Office (among other federal properties) explicitly yields to state law when state law is at conflict with the CFR. So either they are not a governmental entity, and the CFR doesn't apply and they can put up a 30.06 sign, or they are a governmental entity, and the CFR doesn't apply because it is at odds with 30.06(e).

My post from the other thread detailing my opinion on this is here: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 15#p307346" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FWIW, I don't really think there is any malice on the part of the USPS in TX trying to prohibit us counter to the law. I figure most USPS employees and postmasters do not even know what the TX law is any more than your regular average citizen does, not to mention the majority of CHL holders who have even had a class and taken a test on the law but still miss this. Probably every post office in the country gets these signs sent to them and have a requirement to put them up, and the training given to the postmasters and other USPS employees is not in regard to the specific loopholes of individual state laws, but rather only involves the CFR on a broad basis. Funny thing, I am going to a friend's house who is a senior USPS employee tonight, maybe I will ask exactly what he has been told about this issue. My bet is that they are told that the CFR says thus-and-so, and therefore those are the rules, without any mention of the state law being in conflict and superseding the CFR.

Again I will raise the point that if you think it's not ok to carry inside the Post Office building, then you are also forbidden from carrying in the parking lot in most cases, since the CFR refers to "real property" and not "premises" as we are used to in TX law. "Real property" includes the parking lot, and by the way, also likely the neighborhood mailbox cluster as well (if you live in one of these neighborhoods with USPS-managed ganged mailboxes). So you are not really compliant by leaving the gun in your car. Park on the street or next door if you want to be compliant. Of course the MPA also is at conflict with the CFR in this case.

[dicion]

Of course the MPA also is at conflict with the CFR in this case.

Completely forgot about that as well.
So here we have 2 Texas State laws that directly conflict the CFR.

I wonder if writing the postmaster general about this, specifically asking about the CFR's Yield to local laws, without mentioning weapons, or handguns, or anything, if we could get an affermatice answer about the local yielding. Basically a "Am I correct in reading this, that <Cite CFR> States that if it is contrary to local law on any issue, that the CFR therefore yields it's authority to local law?"

Maybe i'll write the letter this weekend, see what I can get as a response, if any.

[NAVY CHIEF]

Ok. I will concede that I am a newbie! What is CFR and MPA? It will probably be a "Duh!" moment, but I'm man enought to take it!

Hooyah!

[dicion]

Code of Federal Regulations
Motorist Protection Act


A CFR is like a Code, or Regulation the Fed uses for some things. Post offices are regulated under CFR's

The MPA was a bill containing modifications to the statutes that was passed back in 2007 that gives an exception to people carrying weapons while in their vehicle.

[C-dub]

Doesn't the whole thing about government property really mean state or other local government and not the federal government with regards to not being able to legally post a 30.06 sign?

[dicion]

Doesn't the whole thing about government property really mean state or other local government and not the federal government with regards to not being able to legally post a 30.06 sign?

Doesn't specify. Just says 'government'. Which would include any and all government property.

[NAVY CHIEF]

Code of Federal Regulations
Motorist Protection Act


A CFR is like a Code, or Regulation the Fed uses for some things. Post offices are regulated under CFR's

The MPA was a bill containing modifications to the statutes that was passed back in 2007 that gives an exception to people carrying weapons while in their vehicle.

Got it! Thanks dicion

[Lindy]

I think a key factor in this doctrine is what constitutes "official purposes."

It's perfectly legal for anyone to mail rifles and shotguns, and for FFL holders to mail handguns, so, pretty obviously, it simply must be legal to carry such into the Post Office.

Given that, another interesting question is whether self-defense is such a recognized "official purpose?"

By the way, reading the other thread linked above, the issue of whether the USPS is a governmental entity is interesting.

If it is an agency of the federal government, then it seems to me that the conflict with the Texas law according to the posted CFR must rule, and it's legal because Texas law says so.

If they want to claim that the USPS is not a governmental entity, then they must have signage which complies with 30.06.

It must be one way or the other.

[Crapshoot]

I think they have similar rules for bibles.

that wouldn't suprise me...

[Zero_G]

Doesn't the whole thing about government property really mean state or other local government and not the federal government with regards to not being able to legally post a 30.06 sign?

Doesn't specify. Just says 'government'. Which would include any and all government property.

Tell that to military bases. Almost all have firearm restrictions except for residents of base housing.