Cc @ post office - Page 5

Cc @ post office

This is a discussion on Cc @ post office within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by be44321 Selfdefense, Thanks for answering my question about leaving in my car in the parking lot, and for citing the court decision. ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 86

Thread: Cc @ post office

  1. #61
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by be44321 View Post
    Selfdefense,

    Thanks for answering my question about leaving in my car in the parking lot, and for citing the court decision. Now I am curious how it can be illegal to carry on federal property and not just buildings, when you can legally carry into a federal courthouse and check your firearm in the public entry area. They are even required to provide a secure area to store your firearm. I would say that you are not only on the property, but inside the building at that point. Thoughts?
    I think the Dorosan case is singular and it speaks to parking a car in a 'secure' area, a fenced parking lot clearly marked. The judge alluded to the 'snorkel lanes', which clearly refers to driving through the associated mailboxes as areas that should be protected, not necessarily off limits for carry though it really can't be interpreted otherwise.

    I certainly understand why the Federal government prohibits (and can prohibit) carry in Federal buildings. Many such establishments like the Capitol, White House, and courts are places that entail extraordinary danger for the people within. Thus, metal detectors and prohibitions make sense. For consistency, all Federal buildings are included. Many, such as the Veterans Administration have clearly fenced boundaries and appropriate (sometimes too inconspicuous to see) signage.

    Other places, like national parks buildings and post offices do not pose the same types of environment. And certainly not the parking lots. Is it worth the chance of being arrested on a felony with a probable conviction? For what? The negligible chance that a gun might be necessary for the few minutes? Or the arrogant, in your face, obnoxious actions that some espouse in other situations? For me, the law is clear. The judges opinion in a relevant case is clear. Carrying on post office property is illegal.

    Yes, it is inconvenient to take special measures (and disarm) before using those facilities, but that is the law. We could always propose legislation to Congress to change the Federal laws but I don't think this is a good time.

    Civil disobedience is no defense and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent to discourage potential law breakers. We have a process for changing the law. Breaking it is not one of the options.


  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Array MP45Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    State of Guns and Religion
    Posts
    937
    I remember when I first got my LTCF and I was hearing this and that from ill-informed people. I said, I'll fix that. I called that Sheriffs department and asked them where I can't carry. He said, "That's real simple. No schools, courthouses, and state parks". Wow. Do you think that would have gotten me in to trouble here in PA if I interpreted the laws that loosely? Probably would have. After some research on the state laws I found out we can't even carry on school property. Bottom line is you have to know the laws and make a decisions based on your comfort level. Me, I've never been in the court system and I have no desire to find out how it works in these issues. I certainly don't want to be a test case. I'd rather use the money spent on those legal bills to send my two kids to college.

  3. #63
    New Member Array dfleming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    12
    What I find curious about US vs. Dorosan is that Dorosan was changed under 39 CFR 232.1, not 18 USC 930. Penalty for violation of 39 CFR 232.1 is light compared to that under that of 18 USC 930.

    The penalty for violation of postal regulation 39 CFR 232.1 is "Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both."

    The penalty for violation of 18 USC 930 is "Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both."

    A postal employee had a loaded pistol in the glove box of his car in the secure area of the post office and was prosecuted for violation of the postal service regulation with the light sentence ($50 and 30 days in jail). I suspect he would have been charged with violation of 18 USC 930 if it applied to postal service property. There are some who argue that it doesn't.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array Andy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    983
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    We could always propose legislation to Congress to change the Federal laws but I don't think this is a good time.
    That's an understatement!
    America: Your government is not ignoring you, it's insulting you.

    The Bill of Rights: Void where prohibited by law.

  5. #65
    Member Array Bashful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by dfleming View Post
    What I find curious about US vs. Dorosan is that Dorosan was changed under 39 CFR 232.1, not 18 USC 930. Penalty for violation of 39 CFR 232.1 is light compared to that under that of 18 USC 930.

    The penalty for violation of postal regulation 39 CFR 232.1 is "Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both."

    The penalty for violation of 18 USC 930 is "Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both."

    A postal employee had a loaded pistol in the glove box of his car in the secure area of the post office and was prosecuted for violation of the postal service regulation with the light sentence ($50 and 30 days in jail). I suspect he would have been charged with violation of 18 USC 930 if it applied to postal service property. There are some who argue that it doesn't.
    18 USC 930 does not apply to the post office.

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:

    410. Application of other laws

    Release date: 2003-06-24

    (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.

    (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:

    (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;

    (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;

    So the only provision that he could be charged under is 39 CFR 232.1

    (l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
    M&P Shield 9mm,
    STI Escort,
    and others....

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,155
    Quote Originally Posted by bandit383 View Post
    Press on then...you be right up there as the numeral uno. Talk is cheap! While you are at it...makes sure you tell them that you're just being disobedient.

    Rick
    I said I advocate it, not that I'd do it.

    I'm going to email my Congressman about this and see if he can get a straight answer.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #67
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Missed that

    Quote Originally Posted by Bashful View Post
    18 USC 930 does not apply to the post office.

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:
    Thanks. I had missed that.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Must........not.........open.........up.......post ........office........thread.........
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

    Theodore Roosevelt

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,155
    Ok here's the email I just sent off to Randy Forbes:

    Congressman Forbes,

    I have a question about Federal law and a glaring inconsistency that has been greatly debated among gun owners, and I hope that you can provide some assistance.

    Many Post Offices have signs barring the possession of weapons, and they cite various Federal Codes. As a lawful citizen with a valid Concealed Handgun Permit, may I legally carry my handgun into a United States Post Office? Is the permitted carrying of a handgun considered a lawful activity (purpose)?

    I will list the relevant Code below.

    18 USC Section 930 (a) says:

    Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

    18 USA Section 930 (d) says:

    Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    However:

    18 USC 930 does not apply to the post office.

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:

    410. Application of other laws

    Release date: 2003-06-24

    (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.

    (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:

    (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;

    (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;

    So the only provision that I could be charged under is 39 CFR 232.1

    (l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

    Which leads to a better question: If I go to the Post Office in order to take mail a package or buy stamps, is that an official purpose? Official purpose is not defined.

    While there are alternatives to the Post Office, I am sure that very few citizens could go their whole lives without needing to go there at some point. I can not think of any good reason why weapons should be banned, such as is necessary in a Federal Courthouse. Going to the Post Office is not much different than going to Wal Mart!

    Please also reference the following:

    US v. Dorosan:

    The Volokh Conspiracy - Another Early Post-<i>Heller</i> Second Amendment Case:

    Dorosan was a Postal employee found to be in possession of a firearm in the employee parking lot, and was found guilty of the CFR 232 cite. Note I am not asking you fight a Judge's ruling. What I would like is a law that prohibits the Post Office from issuing a blanket prohibition, similar to the recent reversal of the National Park rule, that makes the parks mirror state law. Oddly enough, VA law allows rural postal carriers to carry a concealed handgun without a permit!

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  10. #70
    tjm
    tjm is offline
    Member Array tjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    44
    I went to the post office on my way home today. Thanks to you guys I knew to park in the street!

  11. #71
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The problem is it against the law. Of course, if you think it fine then by all means...

    It is not that you cannot carry in your vehicle but rather you cannot carry on Federal property. Period.

    Now, in the particular case where the man was arrested, convicted and lost on appeal, he was an employee parked in the employee area. All the arguments were tried (twice) and failed, including the car being an extension of the home nonsense. This case was particularly interesting because they tried to use Heller as a defense during the appeal.

    For those who feel comfortable breaking the law on Federal property, heed the words of the judge onappeal:



    Please note the bolded text. If carrying is prohibited idling in the 'snorkel lanes' it is not too different than idling in the connected parking lot.

    If you go to the post office leave your gun at home.
    I agree that 39 CFR 232 makes it illegal to carry into the P.O.

    The P.O. that I use is located in a shopping center with several other stores that share the parking lot. Can I legally have my gun in the car in that parking lot and/or carry there?

    Ken

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,155
    Update:

    I got a phone call back from one of Congressman Forbes' staffers today. Unfortunately I was tied up with a patient and couldn't answer the phone. By the time I checked the message, it was too late to call back, so I will return the call Monday.

    The gist of the message:

    He wants to talk to me about the issue so they can "get to the bottom of these conflicting regulations."

    Sounds encouraging. Randy Forbes is a solid pro 2A guy.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  13. #73
    Member Array FireAir7215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    208


    paramedic70002,
    That sounds wonderful! Thank you for updating us. I cant thank you enough for your effort by calling them to find out. Really much appericate it. Look fowarding to hear what they have to say to you. Again, whoever post this thread, thanks for reply!

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
    Must........not.........open.........up.......post ........office........thread.........
    I know.
    I'd had the same thoughts upon seeing the thread title.

    Also I'm reminded by this that the last time this type thread came up I'd decided I was going to call the US Attorneys Office to ask for clarification. I never did though as I got busy with regular work.

    I might have to try it again if I can get a spare minute on Monday.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  15. #75
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    It's ironic that no guns are allowed,since so many postal employees have "Gone Postal", the Post Office is a dangerous place ! I guess they didn't read the signs.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. CC in a post office?
    By Roland in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: February 21st, 2010, 10:58 AM
  2. help the post office
    By faif2d in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 11:25 AM
  3. Oh God!!! The Post Office!!!
    By QKShooter in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 30th, 2004, 08:57 AM

Search tags for this page

texas chl post office

Click on a term to search for related topics.