This new case law seems to contradict what you heard. Looks like parking lots are off limits also.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/21/n...-post-offices/
Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices
Oregon Firearms Federation
Oregon Firearms Federation
Salem, Oregon - -(AmmoLand.com)-For some time there has been confusion about the legality of carrying a firearm in a Post Office.
Many Post Offices have signs posted stating it is unlawful. However, Federal law does NOT prohibit possession of firearms in Post Offices for “any lawful purpose.”
In our book “Understanding Oregon’s Gun Laws” we stated that we knew of no successful prosecutions for persons carrying guns in Post Offices, but otherwise committing no crime.
Unfortunately we now have one.
It’s important to note that the conviction stemmed not from any violation of law, but of a violation of a “rule” which is a very troubling development.
To see the entire ruling, read below or use this link :
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...1197.0.wpd.pdf
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 08-31197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee v. CLARENCE PAUL DOROSAN,
Defendant – Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 08-CR-42-1
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Clarence Paul Dorosan appeals his conviction of violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) for bringing a handgun onto property belonging to the United States Postal Service. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.
Dorosan raises one argument on appeal: The regulation under which he was convicted violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 555 U.S. —-, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2822 (2008). Assuming Dorosan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying a handgun in his car, Dorosan’s challenge nonetheless fails.
First, the Postal Service owned the parking lot where Dorosan’s handgun was found, and its restrictions on guns stemmed from its constitutional authority as the property owner. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3 cl. 2; United States v. Gliatta, 580 F.2d 156, 160 (5th Cir. 1978). This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power that was the source of the ban addressed in Heller. See 128 S. Ct. at 2787-88 (noting the laws in question “generally prohibit[ed] the possession of handguns” anywhere in the city).
Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the “sensitive places” exception recognized by Heller. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (holding that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .”).
Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site. Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.
In conclusion, the above-stated facts do not compel us to hold that § 232.1(l) as applied to Dorosan is unconstitutional under any applicable level of scrutiny.
Oregon Firearms Federation
PO Box 556
Canby, OR 97013
Voice: (503) 263-5830
www.oregonfirearms.org
Linear Mode
