LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksTubby,
Are you saying that post offices are federal property and 18 USC 930 applies?
This is a discussion on Federal CCW Off-Limits Laws within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Tubby, Are you saying that post offices are federal property and 18 USC 930 applies?...
Array
Tubby,
Are you saying that post offices are federal property and 18 USC 930 applies?
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I'm the arrow, you're my bow, shoot me forth and I will go"
"Do not let any individual posts put a knot in your Big Boy Under-Roos"
Array
No. For the last time: post offices are NOT federal property by the federal government's own definition of federal property.
18 USC 930 applies because 39 CFR 232 cannot. 18 USC 930 allows carry on postal property because it is not a federal facility. 39 CFR 232 which says carry on post office property is not applicable because this would abrogate the USC. In doing so, the 39 CFR 232 has declared itself null and void in this instance. The CFR cannot contradict USC. When the CFR does contradict USC, the CFR does not apply and the USC applies 100%.
If the post office were defined as a federal facility, then 18 USC 930 (d) (3) would apply. As is stands, the post office is not a federal facility. The CFR cannot override the USC. If the PO were a federal facility, carrying a firearm into it would be lawful under the exception for "lawful purposes" (ie, engaging in commerce at the PO is lawful activity) in the exception noted in "as otherwise provided in subsection d" from 18 USC 930.
All we are doing is talking in circles. I've made my points. I carry in the post office every single time I enter one. Do what you wish and I will do the same. I'm done with this topic.
Array
This debate continues to go on with post offices. My thought are since some states deny the right to carry into a post office while others do not, it must be a state issue. At best, the law is extremely confusing since it's what thumps what at best.
Les Baer 45
Sig Man
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
M.C.R.G.O.
Would somebody please volunteer to Whoops! and skid their 1911 across the Post Office floor while bending down to pick up a Christmas stamp already.
That way we can finally get this settled once and for all.
I have been reading about this being tossed back and forth for years now.
We DO need a test case. Any volunteers?
Liberty Over TyrannyΜολὼν λαβέ
Array
Ok, I'm back...
Already been done/being done. There is a test case in the works. I am eager to find out how this pans out. I do not know what court of appeals this is out of nor the name of the case. The decision hasn't been made yet, but I can assure you it won't be missed when it does.
I've been looking on Lexis and West and can't find the case. I'm starting to think it may just be an internet rumor.
Array
Do you have a reference for the case? Personally, I think your analysis is flawed. The fact that you might not be prosecuted under a particular section does not provide authority to act in a particular manner. In other words, it is not positive reinforcement for actions.Originally Posted by Tubby45
I have not been in a post office for decades. I see no reason to ever go there. Someone sends me something I need to sign for? I don't want it.
Array
National forests (department of Agriculture) are fine. It is the Parks (Department of Interior) that get a bit fussy over firearms.
Array
This sort of legal analysis is taught in high school.
So if your life is in imminent danger and you kill someone to save your life, the section of law that permits this action is void because it is in another section of law that forbids the killing of another human? See how that works?
The laws are written in plain English. Read and comprehend. If you don't want to carry a gun in a post office, don't. It's that simple.
Quite possibly. I've had some legal friends checking the cases and haven't found anything.
I know there is some issue with the introduction of the CFR, as the link on TGZ regarding this topic is replaced with this:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html
Array
What would you hunt in the post office and what is the bag limit?
Add Corp of Engineer Lakes, Campgrounds, etc to the no-carry list.
Array
And Stanford, also!
Yes, they are written in English. If you want to risk a prison sentence and a fine, along with losing the right to protect yourself and your family for your guess then go right ahead and carry in a post office. It's that simple.The laws are written in plain English. Read and comprehend. If you don't want to carry a gun in a post office, don't. It's that simple.
Array
Not that it matters much, but I'd say along with the mirade of theories on the original post I'd say this too is not cut and dry. They are part of the Federal Employee Benefits Plan. But while their pay scale is structured like the federal General Schedule pay scale, they are not paid by the gov't but by their own revenue.The post office employees are NOT federal employees.
In reality the post office is a giant hybrid of government and independent systems. Until 1971 they were part of the federal system, now they are independent but top officials are gov't appointed and employees receive federal benefits but not federal pay. Only the gov't could make something so confusing. Take it for what its worth.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
