Carrying at the Post Office

[Beiruty]

How about mailing a pistol to an FFL? can't you do that?

Unlicensed persons may not ship a handgun via U.S. Mail.

True, how about FedEx or UPS?

[G26ster]

How about mailing a pistol to an FFL? can't you do that?

Unlicensed persons may not ship a handgun via U.S. Mail.

True, how about FedEx or UPS?

From the Gunbroker web site:

Here is exactly what the ATF 'Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide' (ATF P 5300.4) says:
(B9) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm. [18 U. S. C. 922( a)( 2)( A) and 922( e), 27 CFR 178.31]

IANAL - I am not a lawyer

[ScottDLS]

Actually we have had a test case of sorts, shortly after Heller if I'm not mistaken. The following is done completely from memory:

I believe it was United States V. Dorosan and was heard in the 5th circuit court of appeals (Which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). The good news is that this an unpublished opinion which by my understanding means that it set no precedent. Essentially the 5th circuit concluded that because the parking lot was used for the loading and unloading of mail it would be considered a sensitive place which Heller allowed for a ban on firearms. Additionally they also concluded that the Post Office's ban was legal because the post had constitutional authority to do so as the property owner. In essence we have had a test case, but it really doesn't count for much.

Good cite. I did some internet research on the case and interestingly, it seems to bear out a point that I made (way) earlier in this thread that 18 USC 930 doesn't apply outside of the facilities (buildings), if at all. The "information" under which Dorosan was charged was amended by the US attorney to charge him under 39 C.F.R. § 232 instead of 18 USC 930. The maximum penalty under 39 CFR 232 is $50/30days...

Since Dorosan was an employee, I think his appeal to the 5th circuit (which affirmed his conviction) had more to do with keeping his job than avoiding the penalty.

Driving 70mph on the Baltimore/Washington parkway is a federal crime too, and has a higher penalty than 39 CFR 232. I'm not suggesting doing either one... just repeating what I've discovered.