Carry into Post Office?

[SJRTX]

I was under the impression that it was not allowed by federal law. State Law mentions nothing about carrying into a postal facility. This apparently says that it IS legal to carry into a Post Office:

http://thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

I even asked one of the postal employees awhile back if it was legal with a license, and they said "no", but then again, what do they know?

Any input?

[Braden]

As far as I know it's legal unless you're given notice under 30.06.

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. PO's are federal property and as state law does not supercede federal, if the PO is posted with any kind of "no guns" sign, I believe that we're obligated not to carry there. In my city, they are posted but it could be argued that it was not clearly posted as the "no gun" sign is at the bottom left of a bulletin board no where near the door.

Best.

[SJRTX]

i understand that, but if you click the link, it shows the little poster they use at the front door that states federal code, but they neglect to put in little subsections that say it doesnt apply if you are lawfully carrying etc...

[dolanp]

I wrote the BATFE about this a few months ago, haven't heard back yet. I think the Gun Zone is probably sending out incorrect information, but I wanted to clarify the issue and see what the BATFE thought. If they ever respond I'll post their response.

The unclear issue is mostly whether the CFRs are binding and enforceable by penalties where USC has an exemption for "other lawful purposes" or whatever.

[GlockenHammer]

I have some experience on the issue. Don't do it.

First, State law has zero effect on Fed property, so forget even cracking the book on the TX penal code. Fed law (18 usc 930) prohibits your gun (and knife with blade longer than 2-1/2 inches, I might add) from entering the BUILDING. No sign is required at all.

The gun zone article hinges on an exemption given for "incident to a lawful purpose" and extends the argument that CHL for personal protection is a lawful purpose. To the best of my ability (and I've tried hard), there is zero case law on this topic. Being the test case would be good for everyone else, but expect to spend upwards of $50,000 on our behalf and you still may go to the pen.

Worse yet, the PO has its own set of even more restrictive laws in their "code of federal regulations" (39 CFR 232.1). These don't even get written by elected officials--only appointed bureaucrats. This CFR prohibits guns (and knives >2.5") on their "real property" which means that even driving onto their property to the drive-up drop-off box with your weapon can send you to Federal prison for a year.

Of course, there is only a miniscule chance that you'll be caught. But don't think for one millisecond that the absurdity of that law and its complete inconsistency with the TX law that surrounds the PO will prevent the feds from screwing the snot out of you. It only takes one anti-gun prosecutor to make your life a living hell.

Thank your lucky stars you live in TX and are treated like a decent, law abiding citizen when in TX. But when you go into that post office, you might as well be in Washington DC or RKA, or the Law Offices of Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy and Kerry. Your Texan "rights" do you not one iota of good there.

I'm not bitter.

[GlockenHammer]

I wrote the BATFE about this a few months ago, haven't heard back yet. I think the Gun Zone is probably sending out incorrect information, but I wanted to clarify the issue and see what the BATFE thought. If they ever respond I'll post their response.

The unclear issue is mostly whether the CFRs are binding and enforceable by penalties where USC has an exemption for "other lawful purposes" or whatever.

dolanp, the CFR I'm familiar with is backed up in the 18 USC which gives a blanket up to 1 yr, $5K fine for violating any CFR that Agency creates. That is where the teeth come from. When you violate the CFR, if they intend to get a criminal prosecution, they will get you for the 18 USC xxx that makes it a crime to violate a CFR.

You are right that the issue of "other lawful purposes" on the 18 USC 930 can be debated. Obviously the gun zone has their opinion. I personally agree with them. I think there is legal precedent for the argument, but it has not been tested in court. See Gun Laws of America by Alan Korwin, p. 127 which quotes a "Statute at Large" (basically a law with no number which means it doesn't show up in a lot of archives and indexes, but is a part of the code nonetheless) which states:

The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title...is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, targetshooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity...(emphasis added)

I think that is pretty powerful evidence in support of the gun zone position. The use of the word "other" implies that all items in the preceeding list are specifically included as a lawful activity.

Personally, I think the reason there is no case law on the topic is because the Feds have never pushed a case to a trial judgment. If they did, they might not like what they find out. Without such judgment, they can arrest you and cost you untold grief and expense before finally dropping charges. Then you're out the cash and you've done nothing for the next poor bastage to come along and be in the same circumstance. There is no case law, so they can arrest, harrass and drop again.

They hold all the f'g cards. But I'm not bitter.

[anygunanywhere]

Concealed means concealed.

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

This question is, IMHO, the most questioned topic in concealed carry, and the feds are intentionally vague.

I believe the 20,000+ gun laws adequately cover any BG's illegal activity in any post office.

Prohibited carry in federal offices by lawful citizens should be illegal.

Is it me, or does the constitution define the federal government as subseriant to us, "The People"?

[res1b3uq]

I live in a small town and go to the PO almost every day. I don't really worry about my carry, because nobody has ever noticed that I am carrying. Another point- if you are an FFL you can carry a pistol in in a box, they can ship it for you, and there is no problem. I have also never seen an unarmed police officer in a post office.

[GlockenHammer]

Here's another angle specific to the post office. The CFR that bans weapons (39 CFR 232.1 (l)) also says this in 39CFR232.1(p)(2)

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.

One might construe that to say that since TX has specifically licensed us to carry in the "area in which the property is situated", that this CFR should not abrogate that law (i.e., shall not usurp it) and thus your carry is legal.

Of course, you'd still need to get around 18 USC 930, but that also provides an exclusion for "lawful purposes", which your state government issued license must surely represent.

Oh, well. It may make sense to me, but I'm still waiting for someone else to be the test case.

[stevie_d_64]

Here's a hypothetical...oyyy...

If a Post Office facility is attached or within another facility that conducts public business outside the function of the Post Office...Those facilities that are not off-limits to people who are licensed under the Texas CHL or reciprical States who are conducting "lawful business"...etc etc...

Would you think the US Code or CFR's apply and restrict in that case???

This hypothetical was posted by someone else I recall about a billion years ago on another forum...

The discussion/debate was about premises, common facility, etc etc...

[GlockenHammer]

You can hypothetical yourself to death, but here's my thoughts on this one.

Both 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1(l) need to be addressed.

18 USC 930 (which applies to any and all federal facilities) specifically defines the area in which weapons are prohibited as "a building or part thereof". My interpretation of this is the part of the building that meets the other criteria (e.g., owned or leased by the Fed Gov where Fed employees are regularly present for work.) This means any other part of the same building/complex/mall would not be off limits because there was a post office embedded in it. At least one Goverment agency claimed that the parking lots were "part of the building" and therefore made guns in parking lots illegal (they later found a similar CFR and dropped this ludicrous opinion).

39 CFR 232.1(l) applies to "all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property". Since your case stipulated "If a Post Office facility is attached or within another facility that conducts public business outside the function of the Post Office", the deciding factor would be who controls that larger real property. If that isn't the postal service, the CFR would not apply.

Just my humble opinion. There is a dearth of case histories on these points as I mentioned in my earlier posts.

[stevie_d_64]

You can hypothetical yourself to death, but here's my thoughts on this one.

Both 18 USC 930 and 39 CFR 232.1(l) need to be addressed.

18 USC 930 (which applies to any and all federal facilities) specifically defines the area in which weapons are prohibited as "a building or part thereof". My interpretation of this is the part of the building that meets the other criteria (e.g., owned or leased by the Fed Gov where Fed employees are regularly present for work.) This means any other part of the same building/complex/mall would not be off limits because there was a post office embedded in it. At least one Goverment agency claimed that the parking lots were "part of the building" and therefore made guns in parking lots illegal (they later found a similar CFR and dropped this ludicrous opinion).

39 CFR 232.1(l) applies to "all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property". Since your case stipulated "If a Post Office facility is attached or within another facility that conducts public business outside the function of the Post Office", the deciding factor would be who controls that larger real property. If that isn't the postal service, the CFR would not apply.

Just my humble opinion. There is a dearth of case histories on these points as I mentioned in my earlier posts.

You hit it square on the head muh man...

[Bubba]

... snip Fed law (18 usc 930) prohibits your gun (and knife with blade longer than 2-1/2 inches, I might add) from entering the BUILDING. No sign is required at all... snip

OH NO !
I'm a criminal, a scumbag, a terrorist !

Maybe if I grind about 1/2 inch off the tip of my Benchmade pocket knife, then I can become a member of society again.

[stevie_d_64]

... snip Fed law (18 usc 930) prohibits your gun (and knife with blade longer than 2-1/2 inches, I might add) from entering the BUILDING. No sign is required at all... snip

OH NO !
I'm a criminal, a scumbag, a terrorist !

Maybe if I grind about 1/2 inch off the tip of my Benchmade pocket knife, then I can become a member of society again.

Assume the position...Smile!