close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Anyone Carried in a Post Office?

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by DaBurna, Oct 11, 2012.


  1. Jason D

    Jason D
    Expand Collapse
    INFRINGED
    Silver Member Millennium Member
    1. Project Mayhem

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    41,934
    994
    Location:
    Mivonks, MI
    Since I like my butthole like God made it, I'm just going to go ahead and say no.

    I however have carried into gun shows and cop shops.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Bruce M

    Bruce M
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    38,563
    9,272
    Location:
    S FL
    That may be "fact" to you. I however am extremely reluctant to accept that as fact unless I heard it from a federal court case or at least an opinion from an Assistant US Attorney or at least a Postal Inspection Service Agent.

    Because unlike a whole host of other places that are not federal facilities ranging from K Mart to the Honda dealership to regional malls that suffer a wide variety of crimes that are prosecuted in state courts, there are a whole host of crimes at postal facilities that are investigated by career federal employees who are regularly in post offices and prosecute in federal courts under Title 18.

    And even though letter carriers are not federal employees for pay and pension purposes, unlike lots of people who are murdered at least here, the murder of a letter carrier even when not on postal property will be prosecuted in federal court. http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/120913-01.html

    I would be reluctant to attempt a defense that I can carry legally in a Post Office because while 18 USC 924 does apply to a letter carrier 18 USC 930 does not apply at his place of employment.

    That said my guess is that chances of a federal prosecution by someone who is not a convict for just carrying a firearm is slight. But unless there is some legal opinion from a federal court or prosecutor to me there is a difference between slight and outside the jurisdiction of the statute.
     

  3. Gary Slider

    Gary Slider
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    511
    31
    Location:
    West Virginia
    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

    Is a link to a Appeals Court Ruling where a man was convicted of having a firearm in his vehicle while on PO property. Now he was an employee but he was convicted of breaking the Federal Regulations covering firearms on PO property and the appeals court stated he had no standing under the 2nd Amendment or Heller.
     
  4. 4Rules

    4Rules
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    2,589
    66
    Thank you.
     
  5. Arc Angel

    Arc Angel
    Expand Collapse
    Deus Vult!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    6,920
    6
    Location:
    Penn's Woods
    :wavey: Didn't mean to set you off. Would you feel better if I were to tell you that we give our postperson, at least, a $20.00 tip every Christmas!

    Other than that, everything I've said is 100% correct. If you think otherwise then you need to review current historical events. You may not like what I've said; but, historically, it's accurate; and, once you stop emoting, I think you'll be forced to agree.

    One of our former post offices was shot up, and both staff and customers, alike, were murdered by an irate postal worker. So, please, I'm not making this stuff up! You shouldn't make stuff up, either. Pissed-off post office personnel are - HISTORICALLY - very dangerous to the American public.

    (By the way, the devil will be ice skating in Hell before you ever find me to be uninformed - OK.) :)

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/22/n...unt-but-motive-not.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
     
  6. redbaron007

    redbaron007
    Expand Collapse
    Some Dude
    Lifetime Member
    1. The Outpost Lounge

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    7,963
    43
    Location:
    SWMO
    I think the Post Office likes to have their cake and eat it too.

    Anecdotal conversations, however, I have a couple of Postal employees that are friends and it seems they don't want to be Federal Employees; but, they like to be considered Federal employees when it comes to getting local benefits and perks. :faint:

    :wavey:

    red
     
  7. RussP

    RussP
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    1. The JBT's

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    33,158
    2,456
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    To what does "except for official purposes" apply?
    1. Is it, no person while on postal property, except for official purposes, may carry firearms?

    2. Is it, no person may carry firearms, except for official purposes, while on postal property?

    In other words, is the requirement for carrying
    1. that one be conducting official business with the post office, OR,

    2. is the requirement for carrying that one must be carrying for official purposes? Then,

      1. What is the definition for "carrying for official purposes?"
     
  8. redbaron007

    redbaron007
    Expand Collapse
    Some Dude
    Lifetime Member
    1. The Outpost Lounge

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    7,963
    43
    Location:
    SWMO
    This is the crux of the issue. As one poster pointed out, there is the case in Denver that may be point on. It will be interesting to see how it evolves.

    HerrGlock, could you by chance post a link to that case in Denver? I'd like to follow it. Thx!


    :wavey:

    red
     
  9. Gary Slider

    Gary Slider
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    511
    31
    Location:
    West Virginia
    RussP, In talking to an Attorney in the RKBA's community he talked about that very question you ask. It boils down to whatever the Government wants it to mean and said that with a laugh. HE stated that in state laws especially when it came to carry laws when the state law states Official purposes sometimes it means those with a Permit/License to Carry but only sometimes. Most state laws specifically mention those with Permit/licenses to Carry as being exempt from a law if it doesn't apply to them. It is the view of the Feds that when they state Official Purposes it means someone in Law Enforcement who in the course of their official duties has to carry a firearm. He then stated the way he reads the PO Law/Reg that even a Police Officer can not carry into a PO unless they are on official business at that PO. If they are just stopping in to mail a letter they are in violation of the law. They have to be on PO Property for official business or as the law states official Purposes. Now he told me that was just his opinion but that is the way he understands the law as written.

    Funny thing about Rights/laws/rules/regulations or whatever you want to call them. Look how we read the 2nd Amendment and believe how it applies. Then look how others read the 2nd Amendment and how they think it applies. It will be settled court case by court case. In the mean time we have to tip toe around on what they think they mean.

    Edit: One item I left out. He stated that just mailing a letter or buying a stamp was most likely not official business or purpose.
     
    #49 Gary Slider, Oct 12, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  10. Arc Angel

    Arc Angel
    Expand Collapse
    Deus Vult!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    6,920
    6
    Location:
    Penn's Woods
    BECAUSE MYRIAD LAWS INTERACT THIS IS NOT AN EASY QUESTION TO ANSWER.

    Everything seems to come down to when is a federal law not a federal law, and which has more force: a federal law, a federal regulation, a state law, or a local ordinance? All of the king's horses and none of the king's men have a genuinely definitive answer.

    Consequently, it's a pretty good bet that an otherwise legal and licensed firearms carrier may reasonable expect to come up short and be caught in the tangle of laws, regulations, and definitions that apply to the ambiguously defined entity of the United States Post Office.

    In this instance, legal or otherwise, it appears safe to say that the government mentality - either local, state, or federal - is to screw anyone found to be in possession of a firearm on postal property. I'm NOT saying this is the right, or the necessarily legal thing to do; but it is how a gun carrier might reasonably expect to be treated, 'by government' over any incident of post office carry.

    http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps2.html

    http://buckeyefirearms.com/Concealed-carry-in-a-post-office-may-lead-to-rude-awakening

    The thought has occurred to me that: If I am ever shot or murdered by a homicidal post office employee - or someone else who's, 'gone postal' - while I'm on post office property, do I or my heirs have the right to sue the government for either compulsory (and capricious) disarmament, or because of a (de facto) failure to adequately defend?

    (You can't say that something like this would never happen BECAUSE it already has! Probably not, though, huh!) ;)
     
  11. cysoto

    cysoto
    Expand Collapse
    Gone Shooting!

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    1,735
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
  12. Bruce M

    Bruce M
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    38,563
    9,272
    Location:
    S FL

    I suspect that this regulation may have been written exactly that way to be able to be used or not used as desired. It gives people at several levels lots of discretion and options.

    I also suspect that 39 CFR 232 does not supercede other laws at both the federal and state level.

    "(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 a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 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 or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." 39 CFR 232 (p)
     
  13. RussP

    RussP
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    1. The JBT's

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    33,158
    2,456
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Then we need to reconcile with this:
     
    #53 RussP, Oct 12, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  14. fuzzy03cls

    fuzzy03cls
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    2,852
    18
    Location:
    Florida
    YMMV...from my understanding of everything I have researched, I don't consider the PO as a federal office or the postal property.
    I treat it like any business.
    That said I rarely go into one. If I need a service from the PO I use the contracted places.
     
  15. RussP

    RussP
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    1. The JBT's

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    33,158
    2,456
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    What in your research contradicts this?
     
  16. Bruce M

    Bruce M
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    38,563
    9,272
    Location:
    S FL

    I am not certain there may be much to reconcile. If a guy is yelling and screaming creating a disturbance in the lobby of the post office it may be a violation of 39 CFR 232. However just because it is the post office and because there is a specific regulation indicating that one cannot create a disturbance in the post office does not preclude for instance a county officer from arresting and charging in local court the guy who does not even see him who is in the service area yelling that he is going to go get his AK and shoot up the place. 39 CFR 232 does not mean that FSS 877.03 no longer is applicable in the post office lobby.

    Presumably we can agree that since FSS 790.06 indicates that one with a Florida license may not carry someplace that is prohibited by federal law means that someone carrying a concealed firearm in a post office in Florida might be charged by local law enforcement in local court in addition to or instead of being charged in federal court.

    If a state issued a license under a statute that specifically listed post offices as places allowed to carry, then we might need to reconcile this.

    My guess (uneducated admittedly) is that 39 CFR 232 also does not abrogate 18 USC 930.
     
    #56 Bruce M, Oct 12, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  17. Bruce M

    Bruce M
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    38,563
    9,272
    Location:
    S FL
    Unfortunately at least at times the federal court does seem to treat the post office as federal property. At the risk of repeating myself here is a case in which a guy was convicted of several crimes for a burglary of a post office including a conviction for 18 USC 1361 which prohibits damaging federal property. I think the section has an alarming lack of anything that specifically mentions the post office but merely mentions federal property. http://openjurist.org/821/f2d/1306/united-states-v-burkett
     
  18. fwm

    fwm
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    2,611
    19
    Location:
    Near Central US
    I read the 'official business' as meaning LEO or anyone else carrying in and 'official' capacity.

    Part of my job is reading government laws and rulings and redistributing the meaning to businesses in plain language.

    Not saying my interpretation is not wrong, but I've had 40 years of deciphering the meaning in government language.


    ETA: On the other hand, an couple of years ago someone on another forum did quote a law, separate from the 'Federal building' specifically restricting firearms carry in the USPS. I did leave it open for interpretation as to whether it applied to the customer side of the counter or only to the employee side. Don't remember where it was now, but I do remember just how specific it was, and how surprised I was.

    ETA 2: Whoops, there is was up above 232.1

    On the other hand, concealed means concealed.
     
    #58 fwm, Oct 12, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012
  19. JuneyBooney

    JuneyBooney
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    18,216
    3
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    That is what I hear. :rofl:

    Now this case may be a good one in the long run..it is in Colorado and is called

    Tab Bonidy et al Plaintiffs vs US Postal Service and is for handgun carry in the post offices. The only case law cited is a case where an employee of the postal service had a car parked on their property and was charged. So the above case will be good to watch. The gov just filed a couple of weeks ago for summary judgment.
     
    #59 JuneyBooney, Oct 13, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2012
  20. JuneyBooney

    JuneyBooney
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    18,216
    3
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    A liberal anti gun person thinks guns are horrible and that postal property is off limits unless a leo. A conservative pro gun guy thinks that unless you are there to rob the place that packing a firearm is perfectly legal.

    :cool: I think that sums it up well.