Handgun Carry in the Post Office.. Opinions

[VBshooter]

There seems to be some very different opinions on carrying either concealed or open at the Post Office. One site I went to had 2 full pages of opinions with quotes and listings and references and 20 different trains of thought on what was allowed, Some down right paranoid.. So what do you all here think.. My opinion is if I;m legally allowed to carry concealed and the state allows open carry, andthere is no posting at the door or anywhere else in the building saying its not allowed.Lastly I am in the Post Office to do business I think either one is legal. I do it at least once a week and have not had a problem at any time including being seen by supervisors.

[xjohnx]

[VBshooter]

Here is where it gets blurry,,from subsection d.. which are the exceptions to subsection a,,,this is noted. "(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." Now is being allowed legally by the state to carry concealed or open be considered a lawful purpose by the law? IMHO it is legal purpose (Self Defense) and allowable,, But I;m not a lawyer . So I would love to hear other opinions added to this to see where it goes.

[Moccasin]

Federal property, it's illegal with or without being posted at the door.

[VBshooter]

Look at note (a ) on the poster, Now in my last post I went to 18USC section 930 subsection (d) and thats where the lawful purpose (self defense) came from , that section makes it legal in my opinion,

[Moccasin]

Read 39 CFR 232.1 (L)

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/ ... r232.1.pdf

[VBshooter]

There is enough stuff out there about this to argue for months,, One argumment states that not all of 18 USC applies to the Post Ofiice although it is clearly referenced on the poster, I agree that 39 CFR 232.1 does prohibit it. Then by presence alone it would appear that 18 USC Sct. 930 Sub., D would renounce that ,,So it is a confusing subject to say the least.. I have been trying to find some precedent and there isn't any that I have located yet. Everyone I speak with about this goes one way or the other,, THis is definitly not a clear law that is easily interpreted. maybe others can shed more light on it. I have sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General for the PO to try and get the clarification from the source,,

[Moccasin]

18 USC 930 applies to all federal facilities regardless of agency, but that does not mean that other sections of federal law don't apply also. 39 CFR 232.1 applies specifically to post offices, the same as DoD/service regulations applying to DoD/service facilities. I work on Fort Belvoir and by reading 18 USC 930 I should be able to have my CCW with me at work, but further reading of DoD and Army regulations precludes me from doing. Being employed by the Army makes no difference, visitors are subject to search on entry and I do not reccommend getting caught with a firearm during that search.

Keep in mind that until congress took action this past spring it was, and will remain until Feb. 2010, illegal for us to carry a firearm on national park (federal) property. Even after Feb. 2010 I believe it will still be illegal to carry inside a building on national park property.

[VBshooter]

After more reading I agree with you, Typical government confusion to get to the truth, I will stop the carry in the PO, When I receive it I will post the response I get from the PO Inspector General's Office and we can read their official position.

[gfost1]

Howdy, all,

I thought the Feds spun off the USPS some decades ago, in fact I have often heard it referred to as a quasi-governmental organization.

So... is it or is it not federal property? Maybe their little poster is just to muddy the waters. Wouldn't be the first time something like that was pulled on us.

Regards,

George

[zephyp]

Howdy, all,

I thought the Feds spun off the USPS some decades ago, in fact I have often heard it referred to as a quasi-governmental organization.

So... is it or is it not federal property? Maybe their little poster is just to muddy the waters. Wouldn't be the first time something like that was pulled on us.

Regards,

George

Here's some excerpts from US Code. I provide no interpretation as it is, as always, confusing. Note the last paragraph.

US Code Title 18
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) 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.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Title 39 CFR 232.1
(l) Weapons and explosives . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.

(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.
(2) 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. 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.

q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon

[VBshooter]

George makes a good point, I had heard some rumblings about that too ..I currently am in touch with the PO information office after washing out at the Inspector Generals office, A lot of people I have spoken to have told me that their PO doesn't have the posters displayed anymore.Whenver they get around to contacting me I will post the answer and we can all be sure of what we need to do legally,,

[gfost1]

Jeepers, DK,

Talk about arguing in circles.

US Code Title 18
§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities:

Subsection (d) certainly appears to indicate that susection (a) does not apply in the case of lawful carry or possession, except on the property of a federal court.

Title 39 CFR 232.1

While section (l) appears to apply itself despite any other law to the contrary, section (p)(2) seems to clearly state that section (l) does not supercede any Federal, State or local regulations. Unless of course the intent of section (l) is to nullify section (p)(2), in which case, are we to assume that the regulations were written from the bottom to the top?


Regards,

George

[VBshooter]

That is the consensus all over the web..Too confusing and what is correct. That's why I contacted the PO heirarchy itself to get some insight,,, Be our luck they don;t know either

[zephyp]

Once again our laws written by lawyers and meant to be confusing. I'll leave my gun in the truck when entering the PO.

[dean2k]

The poster or notice as posted by XJOHNX above is posted in every USPS facility, however, you should also note that the notice posted by XJOHNX above is outdated (1999). You may view the updated (2005) notice at: http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/posters/pos158.pdf

[VBshooter]

No problem with the posters, it;s the language on it that is the cause of the questioning,,, A true definition of Official Purposes is needed as it applies to the subject,, One side says it is OK because of state law allowing self defense and permits, and others note that one thing supercedes the other and it is in a circle of government confusion,, Hopefully they will contact me soon and give me their true meaning.

[dean2k]

The USPS is a federal government entity. It would not only be best to leave your gun in the truck - it may be best if you do not have the truck (or car) which contains a gun or ammo on USPS property.

[VBshooter]

Currently that is the route I am following until I get confirmation from the PO information office of how they define Official Purpose.

[Moccasin]

No problem with the posters, it;s the language on it that is the cause of the questioning,,, A true definition of Official Purposes is needed as it applies to the subject,, One side says it is OK because of state law allowing self defense and permits, and others note that one thing supercedes the other and it is in a circle of government confusion,, Hopefully they will contact me soon and give me their true meaning.

I'd think that any definition of "official purpose" given by the government will include only those purposes that the government itself belives are official, i.e. LEO, prison guard, military, etc. I doubt that hunting or CCW will ever meet their definition. While they say it is up to us to protect ourselves they don't want to give up the control over federal property for us to do so.