Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

[joe817]

Steve, your comments are deeply appreciated. In the past 5 years that I've been a member of this forum, you have given us a most unique perspective opinion & insight to the somewhat ambiguous interpretations of 'the law'. For that, I thank you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Post Office suit was lost in the 10th Circuit. The PO can ban firearms both in the buildings and parking lots. TAB BONIDY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, Plaintiffs - Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; PATRICK DO-NAHOE, Postmaster General; MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colo-rado, Defendants - Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391

Chas.

[jimlongley]

The Post Office suit was lost in the 10th Circuit. The PO can ban firearms both in the buildings and parking lots. TAB BONIDY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, Plaintiffs - Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; PATRICK DO-NAHOE, Postmaster General; MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colo-rado, Defendants - Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391

Chas.

[bigity]

Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

[MeMelYup]

Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

USPS and FEDEX are gun free zones with the posting of 30.06 signs at most locations.

[RoyGBiv]

If you want to read the 46 page decision, here's the link
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-conte ... 3-1374.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr1337]

Well, looks like I'm sticking with UPS for the foreseeable future.

[C-dub]

I guess this won't be going any further unless another district says it is unconstitutional, right?

[suthdj]

Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

They will also come to your house to get packages so you don't have to go to the post office.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).

[Charles L. Cotton]

Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).

Correct. The problem is that Texas, for CHL eligibility purposes, will consider it a Class B misdemeanor since jail time is a possible penalty. This will cost a CHL their license for 5 to 7 years.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).

Correct. The problem is that Texas, for CHL eligibility purposes, will consider it a Class B misdemeanor since jail time is a possible penalty. This will cost a CHL their license for 5 to 7 years.

Chas.

I wonder if, in order to get a conviction under the controlling statute for the CFR, there would have to be notice requirements. There ARE explicitly in 18 USC 930, as there should be, since it's a felony. As a practical matter it is low on my list of concerns, since I've yet to hear of marauding AUSA's prosecuting $50 tickets.

Driving through GFSZA zones w/o a CHL, or outside of Texas, or by off duty out of state LEO, is much more concerning.

[Tracker]

In light of Scalia's "sensitive places such as..." in Heller I'd like to know why just because something is federal that automatically qualifies it as a "sensitive place." Where's the armed guard? Not being a lawyer but.... it seems to me if the post office is sensitive the federal government should have to qualify why it is if the fed is going to infringe on my right when getting my mail.

Heller v D.C., Scalia: " Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

[The Wall]

Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

USPS and FEDEX are gun free zones with the posting of 30.06 signs at most locations.

Funny Fedex would be a gun free zone when that's where I take my guns when I want to ship them out for repairs. It was about three years ago the last time I shipped a gun and don't remember any signs. Maybe it's changed since then.