Post Office Gun Ban "Under Fire" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Post Office Gun Ban "Under Fire"


4runner freak
11-28-2011, 13:22
I saw the Denver Post today that a lawsuit (Filed Nov, 2010, IIRC)on the PO Ban is moving forward.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19423472

The law:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930

I hope that this is decided for our benefit, soon.

I'm not wanting to get into an argument about the right/wrong of the law or if it applies to us at all(i.e. "other lawful purposes"), just saw it and thought I'd share what is happening in my, mostly free, state.

Doc8404
11-28-2011, 13:28
good. i recently read a case where an employee (and it would apply to all of us just mailing a letter) was charged for keeping a pistol in his car on USPS property...that's BS.

4runner freak
11-28-2011, 13:39
good. i recently read a case where an employee (and it would apply to all of us just mailing a letter) was charged for keeping a pistol in his car on USPS property...that's BS.

I read that as well, but that was in an "Employee only" parking lot and is not a public access place. That is the argument for why that lawsuit has no standing on this one.

Lots of companies ban weapons for their employees, but they can't restrict customers from discrete carrying(at least in CO).
Obviously, any company can refuse service and ask you to leave(refusal is trespassing), but that is another reason to discrete carry.

Doc8404
11-28-2011, 13:44
yes but i thought Fed law prevents us from carrying in a PO?

xmanhockey7
11-28-2011, 14:24
yes but i thought Fed law prevents us from carrying in a PO?

It does. It also prohibits the gun being in your car in the parking lot.

HerrGlock
11-28-2011, 14:43
yes but i thought Fed law prevents us from carrying in a PO?

It actually doesn't.

18 US Code 930 doesn't apply to a Post Office in any case.

The only line about it is in the CFR's:

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.

Now the question is the definition of "official purposes"
In the case of the lawsuit the OP posted it's a matter of is the PO infringing on the 2d amendment. That's another question and this case might be the one to answer that.

The PO employee carrying in an employee only parking lot has no bearing on general population CCW people.

There is a Supreme Court case where a conviction of carrying in a federal facility was thrown out because the gun was in the parking lot and not in any building. I'm waiting for someone to get busted for federal facility and the courts realize the P.O. is not a federal facility. That'll be funny to watch.

HerrGlock
11-28-2011, 14:44
It does. It also prohibits the gun being in your car in the parking lot.

Would you mind showing me how it does that? What specific code prohibits it?

Thanks

Doc8404
11-28-2011, 14:51
I have a friend that goes in the PO all the time, concealed well, to mail letters and such....better than leaving in the car.

HerrGlock
11-28-2011, 14:57
I have a friend that goes in the PO all the time, concealed well, to mail letters and such....better than leaving in the car.

To me that's an official purpose to go into a Post Office. BUT someone's going to have to be the test case, guinea pig, and get busted doing it to argue this point.

There are too many people who believe it's black and white illegal to carry in a Post Office. In some states it is. Federally it's not near so cut and dried.

usmc4641
11-28-2011, 15:24
If it's legal to mail a longarm...

HerrGlock
12-01-2011, 06:21
yes but i thought Fed law prevents us from carrying in a PO?

It does. It also prohibits the gun being in your car in the parking lot.

Would you mind showing me how it does that? What specific code prohibits it?

Thanks

Hello?

ithaca_deerslayer
12-01-2011, 08:14
If any place bans you from having a gun, they should have their own armed security, metal detectors, and provide you with a place to store your gun.

Otherwise, the bad guys are already carrying their guns there, and so should we be legally allowed to :)

Doc8404
12-01-2011, 09:03
as far as it being part of the federal "code" I don't think they can prosecute you for a criminal offense....but then again, here in NY, i'm sure the judge can just pull your permit...because they can pretty much do that any time they want!

TangoFoxtrot
12-01-2011, 09:13
good. i recently read a case where an employee (and it would apply to all of us just mailing a letter) was charged for keeping a pistol in his car on USPS property...that's BS.

I agree definitely BS!!!!:steamed:

zbusdriver
12-01-2011, 09:28
If any place bans you from having a gun, they should have their own armed security, metal detectors, and provide you with a place to store your gun.

Otherwise, the bad guys are already carrying their guns there, and so should we be legally allowed to :)I could not agree more!

JuneyBooney
12-01-2011, 09:37
It actually doesn't.

18 US Code 930 doesn't apply to a Post Office in any case.

The only line about it is in the CFR's:

39 CFR 232.1:


Now the question is the definition of "official purposes"
In the case of the lawsuit the OP posted it's a matter of is the PO infringing on the 2d amendment. That's another question and this case might be the one to answer that.

The PO employee carrying in an employee only parking lot has no bearing on general population CCW people.

There is a Supreme Court case where a conviction of carrying in a federal facility was thrown out because the gun was in the parking lot and not in any building. I'm waiting for someone to get busted for federal facility and the courts realize the P.O. is not a federal facility. That'll be funny to watch.


I agree with your post.

JuneyBooney
12-01-2011, 09:43
I have a friend that goes in the PO all the time, concealed well, to mail letters and such....better than leaving in the car.

I agree with your friend and I have never been searched in a post office for the few minutes I have been there picking up my mail.

Rick O'Shay
12-01-2011, 09:52
The post offices I visit have removed the sign from the entrance that banned conceal weapons inside. ??

I have never seen ANYONE being searched in a post office. :) Sounds like FUN!

ithaca_deerslayer
12-01-2011, 09:55
as far as it being part of the federal "code" I don't think they can prosecute you for a criminal offense....but then again, here in NY, i'm sure the judge can just pull your permit...because they can pretty much do that any time they want!

That's a good point. I'll have to remember that next time someone asks why I'm so concerned about concealment.

billkny
12-01-2011, 12:44
To me that's an official purpose to go into a Post Office. BUT someone's going to have to be the test case, guinea pig, and get busted doing it to argue this point.

There are too many people who believe it's black and white illegal to carry in a Post Office. In some states it is. Federally it's not near so cut and dried.

A local attorney who has done much good work getting the MO CCW law written and passed has this to say about test cases:

"Anyone seeking to make a test case needs to get a 55-gallon drum. Stuff this drum with hundred dollar bills; cram them in as tightly as possible. Wheel the drum into my office, and then we can talk about it. Of course, flunking a test case means going to prison." Kevin Jamison

redbaron007
12-01-2011, 13:02
I think this has some bearing with the offices:

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.


It sounds like they have to be posted for someone to be arrested. I have not seen the PO here posted.

The next question is; many of postal workers I know, without a shadow of a doubt, claim the Post Office is not a Federal agency and is not part of the Federal government. So, from that perspective, are they considered Federal Facilities? Just asking.


:wavey:

red

HerrGlock
12-01-2011, 14:04
I think this has some bearing with the offices:



It sounds like they have to be posted for someone to be arrested. I have not seen the PO here posted.

The next question is; many of postal workers I know, without a shadow of a doubt, claim the Post Office is not a Federal agency and is not part of the Federal government. So, from that perspective, are they considered Federal Facilities? Just asking.


:wavey:

red

Exactly! Not since about 1972 IIRC have they been government employees:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105----000-.html

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee


(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.

redbaron007
12-01-2011, 14:19
Exactly! Not since about 1972 IIRC have they been government employees:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00002105----000-.html

I haven't read the legal dox on this, but that maybe the angle the plaintiffs are coming from. This could be a very very interesting case to watch.


:wavey:

red

HerrGlock
12-01-2011, 15:10
I haven't read the legal dox on this, but that maybe the angle the plaintiffs are coming from. This could be a very very interesting case to watch.


:wavey:

red

Nah, the PO still has the CFR I posted above to fall back on.

One amusing bit of note that those signs don't tell you is this is the max punishment for violating IF they find CCW while checking your PO Box is not official business:

(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.

oldman101946
12-01-2011, 20:08
It is certainly against the law to carry on Post Office property, inside or on the parking lot.

Also, a police officer is not SUPPOSED to carry on there either unless he is dispatched to the PO or else there for official reasons.

Now to common sense, unless someone needs a gun, there likely will not be anything said about a gun in a postal patron's car. Carry inside and a PO employee see it, you could be looking at some serious hard time.

HerrGlock
12-02-2011, 01:14
It is certainly against the law to carry on Post Office property, inside or on the parking lot.

Also, a police officer is not SUPPOSED to carry on there either unless he is dispatched to the PO or else there for official reasons.

Now to common sense, unless someone needs a gun, there likely will not be anything said about a gun in a postal patron's car. Carry inside and a PO employee see it, you could be looking at some serious hard time.

Do me a favor and post the federal law or reg that prohibits post office carry. You seem sure of yourself so it should be a problem to post it.

Some states restrict it, true, I'm talking federally other than that CFR I posted above with the "official purposes" clause.

JuneyBooney
12-02-2011, 01:18
The post offices I visit have removed the sign from the entrance that banned conceal weapons inside. ??

I have never seen ANYONE being searched in a post office. :) Sounds like FUN!

There are some women postmasters that I would love to "search". :rofl:But don't all men carry a "gun"? :whistling: A???:rofl:

JuneyBooney
12-02-2011, 01:21
Do me a favor and post the federal law or reg that prohibits post office carry. You seem sure of yourself so it should be a problem to post it.

Some states restrict it, true, I'm talking federally other than that CFR I posted above with the "official purposes" clause.

I agree. From the statute I don't believe that it is illegal to carry a gun on post office property. Employees may be banned in their rules and regs but my viewpoint is that if you have a permit it is legal to carry the firearm in to do your business. That may be why we don't have case law on the subject..it is not illegal. :whistling:

JuneyBooney
12-02-2011, 01:34
I think this has some bearing with the offices:



It sounds like they have to be posted for someone to be arrested. I have not seen the PO here posted.

The next question is; many of postal workers I know, without a shadow of a doubt, claim the Post Office is not a Federal agency and is not part of the Federal government. So, from that perspective, are they considered Federal Facilities? Just asking.


:wavey:

red

I agree on the question of "Federal facility". I also question ownership because most post offices are leased and not owned by the Federal Government in my area. I have also found that most "caselaw" does not always put people in jail for things that were actually done. An example may be a man carrying a gun on post office property and dealing drugs. So they go after him for the drugs but not enough evidence and he pleas out for the gun. So we have really never had anyone charged with carrying a concealed weapon on the property and getting charged from what I have seen.

HerrGlock
12-02-2011, 04:46
I agree on the question of "Federal facility". I also question ownership because most post offices are leased and not owned by the Federal Government in my area. I have also found that most "caselaw" does not always put people in jail for things that were actually done. An example may be a man carrying a gun on post office property and dealing drugs. So they go after him for the drugs but not enough evidence and he pleas out for the gun. So we have really never had anyone charged with carrying a concealed weapon on the property and getting charged from what I have seen.

A year or so ago I found a (one) case of a person who had all the charges thrown out except possessing a firearm "in a federal facility" because it was in his car in the public lot at the post office. The Supreme Court threw it out claiming the parking lot was not a federal facility.

One day I'll find that case again. Was a known drug dealer type. In any case that allows you to leave it in your car at worst case.

Filhar
12-02-2011, 07:50
Hope they win. I'm a Postal employee with a ccw license. Our buildings are posted at the doors. It's automatic termination if you're caught with a gun.
The public parking lot is partly Post Office leased property and partly City. I have to park on the City side and lock weapons in vehicle.

Lord
12-02-2011, 16:38
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.

Woudn't having a CCW/CHL be the same as "lawful purposes" as defined within the 2A... the right to keep and bear arms? and for self defense purposes? At the end, it also says you can't be convicted if that laws and subsections are not posted at the entrances. Doesn't that seem a lot like our 30.06 rule in TX?

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

I wonder if that parking lot thing applies here in TX. It used to be the same way at schools, but that was changed in that it's very impractical to attempt to drop a kid off at school if you can't go into the parking lot. So, now the parking lot isn't considered school grounds anymore and you can leave the weapon locked in your car, in the parking lot at school. Couldn't the same argument be made for the PO?

In the long run it may not matter anymore. Considering the $5B loss they recently reported, will they even be "in business" anymore? I think it's just a matter of time before it becomes little "postal stores" that are privately owned for the rare times when you actually have to go to the PO to conduct business.

Jeff82
12-02-2011, 17:08
tagged

HerrGlock
12-02-2011, 18:49
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.

(...)

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.


Quite a few things wrong with quoting that in this thread. Primarily it has nothing to do with the post office.

For one reason, this is in the CFR's:
39 USC 410,
§ 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 none of that you posted has anything to do with the post office as plainly spelled out in the CFR.

Also a definition:

(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

One minor problem with that:

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.


So we know 18 USC 922 doesn't apply and the Post Office is not a federal facility by the definition with 18 USC.
That leaves us with the CFR about the Post Office I posted earlier in the thread about no weapons other than "for official purposes" with a 30 day and/or $50 dollar fine for doing so.

To be determined is whether CCW while checking your PO box is "for official purposes"

If 18USC were applicable you could not legally mail a rifle without violating it, yet you can.

Lord
12-02-2011, 22:55
Quite a few things wrong with quoting that in this thread. Primarily it has nothing to do with the post office.

First, it DOES have something to do with the post office, if they actually post that language at their entrances. In a previous post, there is a postal worker that identifies his buildings as being posted and preventing him from carrying his firearm at work. I will acknowledge that he hasn't stated what the verbiage is on the posted signs, and would very much like to know, but assuming that it's the same as what's been posted, I am certain the USPS would not post that on their doors if they were not permitted to do so.




So we know 18 USC 922 doesn't apply and the Post Office is not a federal facility by the definition with 18 USC.
That leaves us with the CFR about the Post Office I posted earlier in the thread about no weapons other than "for official purposes" with a 30 day and/or $50 dollar fine for doing so.


I have not read 18 USC 922, so for the sake of argument, I will concede that 18 USC 922 doesn't identify the USPS as a federal agency/facility. However, 39 USC 401 states:

The Postal Service shall have the following general powers: (1) to sue and be sued in its official name; (2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to accomplish the objectives of this title; (3) to enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures; (4) to determine and keep its own system of accounts and the forms and contents of its contracts and other business documents, except as otherwise provided in this title; (5) to acquire, in any lawful manner, such personal or real property, or any interest therein, as it deems necessary or convenient in the transaction of its business; to hold, maintain, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of such property or any interest therein; and to provide services in connection therewith and charges therefor; (6) to construct, operate, lease, and maintain buildings, facilities, equipment, and other improvements on any property owned or controlled by it, including, without limitation, any property or interest therein transferred to it under section 2002 of this title; (7) to accept gifts or donations of services or property, real or personal, as it deems, necessary or convenient in the transaction of its business; (8) to settle and compromise claims by or against it; (9) to exercise, in the name of the United States, the right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its official purposes; and to have the priority of the United States with respect to the payment of debts out of bankrupt, insolvent, and decedents' estates; and (10) to have all other powers incidental, necessary, or appropriate to the carrying on of its functions or the exercise of its specific powers.

--------------------------------------------

Further, 39 USC 411 is identified as "Cooperation with other Government Agencies" indicating that the USPS itself is in fact a Government Agency. To me that has federal written all over it, but wait, there is more.

--------------------------------------------

39 USC 101 - (a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people.

--------------------------------------------

39 USC 102 As used in this title - (1) "Postal Service" means the United States Postal Service established by section 201 of this title; (2) "Board of Governors", and "Board", unless the context otherwise requires, mean the Board of Governors established under section 202 of this title; (3) "Governors" means the 9 members of the Board of Governors appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, under section 202(a) of this title; and (4) "Inspector General" means the Inspector General appointed under section 202(e) of this title.

--------------------------------------------

Now, so far that is an awful LOT of reference to federal government, for the USPS to not be a federal agency.


To be determined is whether CCW while checking your PO box is "for official purposes"

If 18USC were applicable you could not legally mail a rifle without violating it, yet you can.

I call BS on this last part for this reason: "For official purposes" is sort of a catch all to it. As a norm, you can't simply walk in with a long gun (rifle) just for the sake of walking in with it and having no other reason for having it with you, than simply to have it with you. As a catch all, "for official purposes" would blanket that if you walked in with it, properly disabled or what have you, according to whatever stipulations there are for mailing one (I have never mailed one), and the "official purpose" would be to mail it!

I have a US attorney friend, by now acquaintance since I haven't spoken to him in a while, but I will try to get in touch with him and pick his brain on this.
Until it was brought to my attention of this particular "gray area", I walked into the PO with my CCW all the time. The only signage I ever looked for was 30.06 (TX code prohibiting concealed carry), and not seeing any, I would walk right in. Of course if it's a federal building that's included in any USC, they wouldn't need the 30.06...

By the way, HerrGlock, are you an attorney?

HerrGlock
12-03-2011, 01:49
First, it DOES have something to do with the post office, if they actually post that language at their entrances. In a previous post, there is a postal worker that identifies his buildings as being posted and preventing him from carrying his firearm at work. I will acknowledge that he hasn't stated what the verbiage is on the posted signs, and would very much like to know, but assuming that it's the same as what's been posted, I am certain the USPS would not post that on their doors if they were not permitted to do so.


They post the same signs they've posted since prior to 1972 when the USPS workers were federal employees.

Recently I've seen them posting only the CFR I posted stating about "official purposes" and taking down the ones that mention US Code.

(edit) I'm a homeless bum. Does that make you feel better about yourself?

HerrGlock
12-03-2011, 02:05
I have not read 18 USC 922, so for the sake of argument, I will concede that 18 USC 922 doesn't identify the USPS as a federal agency/facility. However, 39 USC 401 states:

The Postal Service shall have the following general powers: (1) to sue and be sued in its official name; (2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to accomplish the objectives of this title; (3) to enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures; (4) to determine and keep its own system of accounts and the forms and contents of its contracts and other business documents, except as otherwise provided in this title; (5) to acquire, in any lawful manner, such personal or real property, or any interest therein, as it deems necessary or convenient in the transaction of its business; to hold, maintain, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of such property or any interest therein; and to provide services in connection therewith and charges therefor; (6) to construct, operate, lease, and maintain buildings, facilities, equipment, and other improvements on any property owned or controlled by it, including, without limitation, any property or interest therein transferred to it under section 2002 of this title; (7) to accept gifts or donations of services or property, real or personal, as it deems, necessary or convenient in the transaction of its business; (8) to settle and compromise claims by or against it; (9) to exercise, in the name of the United States, the right of eminent domain for the furtherance of its official purposes; and to have the priority of the United States with respect to the payment of debts out of bankrupt, insolvent, and decedents' estates; and (10) to have all other powers incidental, necessary, or appropriate to the carrying on of its functions or the exercise of its specific powers.

--------------------------------------------

Further, 39 USC 411 is identified as "Cooperation with other Government Agencies" indicating that the USPS itself is in fact a Government Agency. To me that has federal written all over it, but wait, there is more.

--------------------------------------------

39 USC 101 - (a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people.

--------------------------------------------

39 USC 102 As used in this title - (1) "Postal Service" means the United States Postal Service established by section 201 of this title; (2) "Board of Governors", and "Board", unless the context otherwise requires, mean the Board of Governors established under section 202 of this title; (3) "Governors" means the 9 members of the Board of Governors appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, under section 202(a) of this title; and (4) "Inspector General" means the Inspector General appointed under section 202(e) of this title.

--------------------------------------------

Now, so far that is an awful LOT of reference to federal government, for the USPS to not be a federal agency.

That's a lot of assumption. Why don't you just go to the USPS site and look:

http://www.usps.gov/

Oops, now look at the site you actually were sent to.

Did you not see the US Code Title 5 I posted earlier? There's no guesswork here. This is in the official definition of federal government employee:

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.

Ever wonder why USPS jobs are not listed in http://www.usajobs.gov?

Read up on federal benefits. Whenever the usps employees are included the reg states, "Federal employees and postal workers" or language similar to that.

The USPS split from the federal government in 1972 and became a commercial enterprise within the government.

donovan655
12-03-2011, 08:13
First and foremost, I absolutely hate the PO rule.

We can search through trillions of lines of federal regulations for a technicality that would imply carrying in a Post Office is legal.

However, it is a general rule that carrying or possesing a firearm on any Federal Property is illegal.

This was covered in my CHL class with some vigor.

NMG26
12-03-2011, 08:22
I have a friend that goes in the PO all the time, concealed well, to mail letters and such....better than leaving in the car.

I have a friend that does this as well..........:whistling:





:)

srprex
12-03-2011, 11:32
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.

Woudn't having a CCW/CHL be the same as "lawful purposes" as defined within the 2A... the right to keep and bear arms? and for self defense purposes? At the end, it also says you can't be convicted if that laws and subsections are not posted at the entrances. Doesn't that seem a lot like our 30.06 rule in TX?

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

I wonder if that parking lot thing applies here in TX. It used to be the same way at schools, but that was changed in that it's very impractical to attempt to drop a kid off at school if you can't go into the parking lot. So, now the parking lot isn't considered school grounds anymore and you can leave the weapon locked in your car, in the parking lot at school. Couldn't the same argument be made for the PO?

In the long run it may not matter anymore. Considering the $5B loss they recently reported, will they even be "in business" anymore? I think it's just a matter of time before it becomes little "postal stores" that are privately owned for the rare times when you actually have to go to the PO to conduct business.

According to the Texas Concealed Handgun manual, it is against the law to carry on the "premises" of a post office. However, it defines "premises" as "a building or portion of a building" (code 46.035)....not the parking lot.
Also, if the only occasion you would present your FA would be to save your life, or someone else's....whatever penalty you would be charged with...would be worth it....wouldn't it?

Doc8404
12-03-2011, 12:10
Also, if the only occasion you would present your FA would be to save your life, or someone else's....whatever penalty you would be charged with...would be worth it....wouldn't it?


I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Darkangel1846
12-03-2011, 12:17
After this story..who knows
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SHOTS_FIRED_POST_OFFICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-02-11-41-24

srprex
12-03-2011, 13:14
After this story..who knows
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SHOTS_FIRED_POST_OFFICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-02-11-41-24

This story illustrates the fallacy of GFZ's:
Did the worker know it was against the law to bring a FA to work?...Yes!
Did that stop him?....No!
Were the other workers at risk?....Yes!
Were they equipped to defend themselves?...No!
If they were armed, could they have defended themselves?...Yes!
Were they any safer because of the FA prohibition in Post Offices?...No!
So what freaking good do these laws do?...NOTHING!
This proves we are passing laws, not out of reason but for political correctness!

Lord
12-03-2011, 13:23
They post the same signs they've posted since prior to 1972 when the USPS workers were federal employees.

Recently I've seen them posting only the CFR I posted stating about "official purposes" and taking down the ones that mention US Code.

(edit) I'm a homeless bum. Does that make you feel better about yourself?

It's not a matter of feeling better about myself or whatever you're leaning to with that. This whole conversation, as far as I was concerned, was to learn more about a particular issue. I was also reading through some laws, cross referencing, taking whatever you and others have said into consideration, all for the simple purpose of learning something. Asking if you were an attorney was simple conversation and I would be more inclined to take the word of an attorney as an interpreter of laws before someone who renders an opinion of what they think a law means or implies that is not an attorney, no offense.

Lord
12-03-2011, 13:48
According to the Texas Concealed Handgun manual, it is against the law to carry on the "premises" of a post office. However, it defines "premises" as "a building or portion of a building" (code 46.035)....not the parking lot.
Also, if the only occasion you would present your FA would be to save your life, or someone else's....whatever penalty you would be charged with...would be worth it....wouldn't it?

Maybe you can help me out. I've read all through from 46.02 to 46.06 and nowhere do I see a reference to Post Offices. I see the references to "buildings", "premises", and "portions of buildings" but not a single reference to Postal Facility, Post Offices, etc. The laws that I read through are the latest available at the following link and posted below:


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person com-
mits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly pos-

TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §46.03. 39


sesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section
46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution,
any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is
being conducted, or a passenger transporta-
tion vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or
educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written
authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or
while early voting is in progress;
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to
written regulations or written authoriza-
tion of the court;
(4) on the premises of a racetrack; or
(5) in or into a secured area of an airport.
(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of which is desig- nated by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice as a place of
execution under Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a day
that a sentence of death is set to be imposed on the designated premises and the person received
notice that:
(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with a weapon listed
under this subsection was prohibited; or
(B) possessing a weapon listed under this subsection within
1,000 feet of the premises was prohibited.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (a)(1)-(4) that the actor possessed a firearm
while in the actual discharge of his offi-
cial duties as a member of the armed forces or national guard or a
guard employed by a penal institution, or an officer of the court. (c) In this section:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.
(2) "Secured area" means an area of an airport terminal building to which access is controlled by
the inspection of persons and property
under federal law.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the actor possessed a firearm or
club while traveling to or from the actor's
place of assignment or in the actual discharge of duties as:
(1) a member of the armed forces or national guard; (2) a guard employed by a penal institution;
or
(3) a security officer commissioned by the Texas Private Security
Board if:
(A) the actor is wearing a distinctive uniform; and
(B) the firearm or club is in plain view; or
(4) a security officer who holds a personal protection authoriza- tion under Chapter 1702,
Occupations Code, provided that the officer
is either:
(A) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uni- form or apparel described by
Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code,
and carrying the officer's firearm in plain view; or
(B) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's firearm in a
concealed manner.

40 PC §46.035. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS


(e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(5) that the actor checked all firearms as
baggage in accordance with federal or state law or regulations before entering a secured area.
(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor possessed a handgun and
was licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(g) An offense under this section is a third degree felony.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor possessed a firearm or
club while traveling to or from the actor's
place of assignment or in the actual discharge of duties as a security officer commissioned by the
Texas Board of Private Investigators and
Private Security Agencies, if:
(1) the actor is wearing a distinctive uniform; and
(2) the firearm or club is in plain view.
(i) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(6) that the actor possessed a firearm
or club:
(1) while in a vehicle being driven on a public road; or
(2) at the actor's residence or place of employment.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an
offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under
the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the
handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder inten- tionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license is- sued under Chapter 25, 28, 32,
69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from
the sale or
service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as deter-
mined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section
104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or profes- sional sporting event or
interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and
a handgun is used
in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the
premises of a nursing home li-
censed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the li- cense holder has written
authorization of the hospital or nursing home
administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder inten- tionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries a handgun under the authority
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §46.035. 41


of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at
any meeting of a governmental entity.
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the
handgun is concealed.
(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code,
and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the
security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement
rides are available for use by the
public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least
75 acres in surface area, is enclosed
with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more
than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term
does not include any public or private
driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or
other parking area.
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public
or private driveway, street, sidewalk
or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) is a Class A
misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under Subsection
(b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony of the third degree.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the
commission of the offense, displayed the
handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
handgun under circumstances in which the actor
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

Lord
12-03-2011, 13:58
That's a lot of assumption. Why don't you just go to the USPS site and look:

http://www.usps.gov/

Oops, now look at the site you actually were sent to.

Did you not see the US Code Title 5 I posted earlier? There's no guesswork here. This is in the official definition of federal government employee:

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.

Ever wonder why USPS jobs are not listed in http://www.usajobs.gov?

Read up on federal benefits. Whenever the usps employees are included the reg states, "Federal employees and postal workers" or language similar to that.

The USPS split from the federal government in 1972 and became a commercial enterprise within the government.

I went to the site you posted, specifically:
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/legal/section-508/welcome.htm
and it reads:

WHAT THE LAW SAYS
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is a law that requires federal agencies, including the Postal Service, (oops, in your face?)to procure EIT that is accessible to persons with disabilities. The law requires that EIT equipment and systems procured on or after June 21, 2001, comply with standards written by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board). These standards were published December 21, 2000 in the Federal Register. EIT includes technology such as web pages, software applications, computers, self-contained kiosks, copiers, multimedia, and telecommunications systems. These standards are intended to make these technology products more accessible to individuals with disabilities.

---------------------------------------

Further, this found under
TITLE 39--POSTAL SERVICE

PART I--GENERAL

CHAPTER 4--GENERAL AUTHORITY

(e)(1) To the extent that the Postal Service, or other Federal
agency acting on behalf of or in concert with the Postal Service,
engages in conduct with respect to any product which is not reserved to
the United States under section 1696 of title 18, the Postal Service or
other Federal agency (as the case may be)--

-----------------------------------------

What you keep quoting seems to be removing the title of employee from postal workers for the purposes of that specific article and no other reason. In other words "when we talk about federal employees for this article, we're not talking about the postal workers"


I've taken it a step further and have actually written to the Postal Service specifically asking if they are or are not a Federal Agency.

SCmasterblaster
12-03-2011, 15:16
How's this one: I live across the street from my Post Office here in VT. There is no home mail delivery - I am required to cross the street and go into the front of the PO to check my PO box. I therefore must LEAVE MY G17 AT HOME in order to merely check my mail. I should CCW anyway.

Lord
12-03-2011, 15:22
How's this one: I live across the street from my Post Office here in VT. There is no home mail delivery - I am required to cross the street and go into the front of the PO to check my PO box. I therefore must LEAVE MY G17 AT HOME in order to merely check my mail. I should CCW anyway.

LOL, that does blow. As soon as we can get some definitive information, I will be sure to pass it on.

SgtScott31
12-03-2011, 23:11
Regardless of its status as federal or not, if it's posted "no carry" in my state, a permit holder is prohibited from carrying in there.

I for one would not want to be the guinea pig in that case. The feds have A LOT of time, money, and resources to take it as far as they feel like going. You normally can't say the same for the defendant.

Lord
12-03-2011, 23:28
Regardless of its status as federal or not, if it's posted "no carry" in my state, a permit holder is prohibited from carrying in there.

I for one would not want to be the guinea pig in that case. The feds have A LOT of time, money, and resources to take it as far as they feel like going. You normally can't say the same for the defendant.

I'm pretty sure that if it's posted as "no carry" in anyone's state, then you're prohibited from carrying there. The original question here, is it a federal agency/installation/building and thus prohibited by default, posted by your state or not?

As soon as I receive a response on this from the Postal Service and/or my US Attorney friend, I will post what I find out.

Cali-Glock
12-03-2011, 23:52
I agree with your friend and I have never been searched in a post office for the few minutes I have been there picking up my mail.

Some Post Offices have security guards and metal detectors... yes you have to pass through a metal detector to get into the Post Office in downtown Sacramento.

SJ 40
12-05-2011, 19:42
Much longer and it won't matter as their will not be a post office or snail mail,after todays news. SJ 40

IhRedrider
12-06-2011, 17:50
That's a lot of postings quoting laws or parts of laws. I'm still confused, if my post office is NOT posted (TN) can I legally carry in it WITH a permit? If not exactly which law prohibits it. Thanks for the help and sorry I'm apparently too stupid to figure out it myself.

Lord
12-06-2011, 20:25
That's a lot of postings quoting laws or parts of laws. I'm still confused, if my post office is NOT posted (TN) can I legally carry in it WITH a permit? If not exactly which law prohibits it. Thanks for the help and sorry I'm apparently too stupid to figure out it myself.

Yeah it is. The reason I posted every law I did was to back up anything I said. It seems to be the norm here that when you offer information or an interpretation of a law, it's best to post the law to back what you say up. as for as being confused about it still, so am I, and that's why I posted the laws that I did. so far I haven't heard back from the Postal Service, so my next step is to go to the main post office here and talk to the shop steward or above and pick their brain on whom to call.

tdfirearms
12-07-2011, 12:20
Not to open a new can of worms, but! What about Post Office facilities that are inside of grocery stores.

You should be able to at least leave your handgun in your vehicle at any parking lot, federal or not.

Doc8404
12-07-2011, 19:55
and risk it getting stolen....thanks, but i will continue to CC....concealed is the key.

Lord
12-08-2011, 00:02
Not to open a new can of worms, but! What about Post Office facilities that are inside of grocery stores.

You should be able to at least leave your handgun in your vehicle at any parking lot, federal or not.

Inside grocery stores.... good question! Now you have me sitting here going... "hmmm"

holesinpaper
12-08-2011, 00:24
It is certainly against the law to carry on Post Office property, inside or on the parking lot.

Also, a police officer is not SUPPOSED to carry on there either unless he is dispatched to the PO or else there for official reasons.

Now to common sense, unless someone needs a gun, there likely will not be anything said about a gun in a postal patron's car. Carry inside and a PO employee see it, you could be looking at some serious hard time.

CFRs are model codes. But why be accurate and split hairs.

holesinpaper
12-08-2011, 00:28
We can search through trillions of lines of federal regulations for a technicality that would imply carrying in a Post Office is legal.

Generally it's advisable to reverse that mode of thinking.

Search through trillions of lines of regulations to try and find where it explicitly says it is illegal.

IMHO, INAL.

Jeff82
12-08-2011, 19:44
CFRs are model codes. But why be accurate and split hairs.

What's a "model code"?

Carrys
12-09-2011, 11:51
Looking at how some people have chosen to read the law here, all I can say is that there appears to be so many more idiots in our Country than I first thought.

The frightful ignorance some folks use to read the law is simply mind boggling.




And the worst thing, they seem to wear that ignorance around their neck as some sort of medal to be proud of. :shocked:

HerrGlock
12-09-2011, 11:55
Looking at how some people have chosen to read the law here, all I can say is that there appears to be so many more idiots in our Country than I first thought.

The frightful ignorance some folks use to read the law is simply mind boggling.




And the worst thing, they seem to wear that ignorance around their neck as some sort of medal to be proud of. :shocked:

SHHHHH. Sometimes it's all the amusement one gets.

redbaron007
12-09-2011, 12:18
SHHHHH. Sometimes it's all the amusement one gets.

:rofl: :supergrin: :rofl:


:wavey:

red

Lord
01-05-2012, 21:42
Previously, I promised that I would ask around and get some sort of a definitive answer. The USPS never answered my query, so I asked a US Attorney, and a Deputy Constable who is also a retired sheriff's deputy, and Criminal Justice Instructor, considered an expert in her field.

According to both, the Post Office, and USPS is a federal agency, their employees are federal employees. The postal inspector is also considered LEO with the authority to make arrests under federal Law.

Now, as to the question if anyone with a CHL, CCW, CPL can carry their weapons in postal facilities... the answer is no. We are banned from carry within those facilities.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am delivering information that comes from two extremely reliable sources.

HerrGlock
01-06-2012, 01:50
Previously, I promised that I would ask around and get some sort of a definitive answer. The USPS never answered my query, so I asked a US Attorney, and a Deputy Constable who is also a retired sheriff's deputy, and Criminal Justice Instructor, considered an expert in her field.

According to both, the Post Office, and USPS is a federal agency, their employees are federal employees. The postal inspector is also considered LEO with the authority to make arrests under federal Law.

Now, as to the question if anyone with a CHL, CCW, CPL can carry their weapons in postal facilities... the answer is no. We are banned from carry within those facilities.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am delivering information that comes from two extremely reliable sources.

The Postal Inspectors are, in fact, federal employees. They're series 1811. They have to be to enforce federal law dealing with transportation of the mail. That part is right.

The Postal Employees are not federal employees and the Post Office itself has not been a federal agency since 1970 and was removed from Department status effective 1971. Its charter even states it's a commercial enterprise within the federal government.

Oh, you don't have to believe me. Do try to keep up with court cases occasionally.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/486/486.US.549.86-1431.html



You are amusing, though. Enjoy your day.

HerrGlock
01-06-2012, 01:59
You might want to tell these guys they're federal employees, it seems they don't believe they are. They seem to think they're Postal Employees as a distinct entity apart from federal employees:

http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2010/03/postal-or-federal-employee-pay/

(edit) Oh, in case you're wondering, that's the site for the USPS employees union.

xmanhockey7
01-06-2012, 03:55
And not only within the facilities but even in the parkings lot in your car.

Glockworks
01-06-2012, 04:26
If any place bans you from having a gun, they should have their own armed security, metal detectors, and provide you with a place to store your gun.

Otherwise, the bad guys are already carrying their guns there, and so should we be legally allowed to :)
OMG, someone who gets it!!

Thank you, I've said this to some, who get the deer in the headlights look, and look like they are stoned and unable to comprehend.

rta108
01-06-2012, 17:06
This is an interesting thread.

It's hard to take interpretations of case precedents presented here at face value, however. Very risky without knowing credentials of one who is stating "facts" with such conviction. Follow at your own risk. JUDGES interpret the law, not the guy getting arrested for having a gun in the PO. Too late by that point!

No doubt post office is a gray area. Payscale, benefits, union, all unique (39-401 stuff) Could the attorney's office argue that it is a federal agency for a prosecution? I think so.


This plain language article calls it a "Semi-independent" gov't agency. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm)
Sorry to drag you down to my level, herrglock.

Taxpayer supported (partially).
Doesn't pay Fed taxes.
Eminent domain authorities.
Federal LEOs.
Created by Fed.

My layman's interpretation of "official purposes" would indicate either: LEO in PO while on duty, or a person mailing a gun. No other purpose for being in the PO requires a weapon.

IhRedrider
01-06-2012, 17:36
Lord,

Now, as to the question if anyone with a CHL, CCW, CPL can carry their weapons in postal facilities... the answer is no. We are banned from carry within those facilities.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am delivering information that comes from two extremely reliable sources.

I'm not shooting the messenger, but I would really like to know the actual law that says we cannot carry in the PO. If you could get with your sources and get this info and post it that would be great. Thanks.

HerrGlock
01-06-2012, 17:41
No doubt post office is a gray area.

Drop all the other stuff and make this statement and you're right.


My layman's interpretation of "official purposes" would indicate either: LEO in PO while on duty, or a person mailing a gun. No other purpose for being in the PO requires a weapon.

Unless and until there is case law or new laws created to explain this it remains unsettled. If I'm checking my PO Box, I'm in the post office for an official purpose.

If you want to get even more specific a state or local LEO has no purpose being in a post office armed, according to your standard.

See? It's not quite as cut and dried as all that.

Until there's case law or more detailed laws passed this is where every single CCW at a post office ends.

Lord
01-06-2012, 21:27
The Postal Inspectors are, in fact, federal employees. They're series 1811. They have to be to enforce federal law dealing with transportation of the mail. That part is right.

The Postal Employees are not federal employees and the Post Office itself has not been a federal agency since 1970 and was removed from Department status effective 1971. Its charter even states it's a commercial enterprise within the federal government.

Oh, you don't have to believe me. Do try to keep up with court cases occasionally.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/486/486.US.549.86-1431.html



You are amusing, though. Enjoy your day.

If I learn nothing else from these forums, one thing I have learned is that you are an a**hole

Lord
01-06-2012, 21:30
Lord,



I'm not shooting the messenger, but I would really like to know the actual law that says we cannot carry in the PO. If you could get with your sources and get this info and post it that would be great. Thanks.

I have a meeting with my attorney on Monday regarding a 4th amendment violation, and I'll ask him for some resources on this.

usmc4641
01-06-2012, 22:42
If I learn nothing else from these forums, one thing I have learned is that you are an a**hole

Being right doesn't make him an a**hole. Being pissed off about being wrong does.

Billua
01-06-2012, 23:09
I also have a friend that while running errands, has walked into the PO while CCW-ing...

He has never been asked to show his sidearm...

If someone thinks they are so right, I'll loan them my model 29 to strap to their hip while they go in to mail a letter. :rofl:

Lord
01-07-2012, 00:03
Being right doesn't make him an a**hole. Being pissed off about being wrong does.

I'm not pissed off about being wrong. I would take the word of a US Attorney, and Criminal Justice Professor before I take his word. He's an armchair lawyer, they're not. it doesn't change the fact that his comments and attitude are those of an a**hole.

Besides, see my next post... it proves him wrong with his own posting.

Lord
01-07-2012, 00:22
The Postal Inspectors are, in fact, federal employees. They're series 1811. They have to be to enforce federal law dealing with transportation of the mail. That part is right.

The Postal Employees are not federal employees and the Post Office itself has not been a federal agency since 1970 and was removed from Department status effective 1971. Its charter even states it's a commercial enterprise within the federal government.

Oh, you don't have to believe me. Do try to keep up with court cases occasionally.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/486/486.US.549.86-1431.html



You are amusing, though. Enjoy your day.

The very case which you so proudly display as proof of your incorrect argument, includes the below paragraph and numerous others that identify the USPS as a federal agency trying to claim governmental immunity and being denied in the suit for no other reason than the sue-and-be-sued clause in the Postal Reorganization Act. Maybe YOU should read your own postings of legal proceedings and written law. No matter which way you slice it, just because the Postal Service was given the power to conduct itself as a business, and doesn't fall under governmental immunity from prosecution, doesn't mean it's not a federal service. The article you post is replete with reference to the post office attempting to take a position of governmental immunity based on its position as a federal agency, but is denied that due the sue-and-be-sued clause. Nice try, but this is the second time you've attempted to post something to prove your point, and it only proved that you're wrong in your assumption and position. Learn to read and interpret, or even do what I did. Ask properly credentialed persons to explain it to you. Either way, thank you for your ignorance, you are dismissed.

In order to address respondent's arguments, it is necessary to explain briefly the manner in which Title VII provides a cause of action to federal employees. As originally enacted in 1964, Title VII, by excluding federal entities from its definition of employer, see § 701(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), did not provide a cause of action to federal employees. Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 825, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1964, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). In 1972, Congress amended Title VII by adding its § 717, which brought federal employees, including employees of the Postal Service, within the ambit of Title VII. Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 111, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. In so doing, Congress intended to provide federal employees with " 'the full rights available in the courts as are granted to individuals in the private sector under Title VII.' "

Let me add more to this. The following article clearly defines the USPS as a "semi-independent federal agency"... don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm

Read it all, and all adjoining pages, but my favorite part is this:

The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

You were equally amusing, but no longer. Enjoy your ignorance.

cadillacguns
01-07-2012, 03:02
Does the term "going" or "gone" POSTAL Ring a bell?

The rules were put down to protect postal employees from co workers.

many killed in the 80's, led to those laws.

To each his own when visiting the PO, lines so long at my local PO, you'd be sweating like Ghadaffl's last car ride and outed for printing your plastic as you juggle your boxes and envelopes in the line of doom, that moves one person per fifteen minutes. Probably a few have brought out their toys and stuck them to their heads saying.............If this line don't move, I am going to end it right here. It's taking the rest of the line of sufferers with you that the feds worry about let alone their own slaves.

kensteele
01-07-2012, 16:26
The USPS is a strange breed. Long time ago, you have certain thoughts about the post office and most recently, a different set of thoughts. The best answer is they are postal employees. However, the second largest US civilian employer is the USPS.

Go take a look at what happened with teh Act during the Nixon years and you'll get a good idea about the hybrid nature of the USPS and where they stand today. My father was a career USPS letter carrier and I've seen more government paychecks than most civilians, of course that was back in the day when you brought home an actual check.

B.Reid
01-07-2012, 17:06
:wow:

rta108
01-08-2012, 11:31
Unless and until there is case law or new laws created to explain this it remains unsettled.

Agreed, and I wouldn't volunteer to be the test case.

I'm checking my PO Box, I'm in the post office for an official purpose.
Yes, but i would argue the "specific purpose" language refers to your need for the weapon, not your need to go into in the PO.

If you want to get even more specific a state or local LEO has no purpose being in a post office armed, according to your standard.

I would argue that a LEO has a purpose for being armed, period. This would depend greatly on their dept policy of course, and how the scope of their employment is defined. I notice you left federal LEO out of your statement...

HerrGlock
01-08-2012, 14:37
I would argue that a LEO has a purpose for being armed, period. This would depend greatly on their dept policy of course, and how the scope of their employment is defined. I notice you left federal LEO out of your statement...

What crime done at a post office would state/local cops investigate or respond to? State/local cops do not respond to or investigate federal laws. Anything that interferes with the mail is federal. When they de-federalized the post office workers they didn't take the mail infractions out of the US Code. That's why Postal Inspectors are series 1811 federal investigators. Oh, I'm sure there are some where the local guys are the first responders but they mostly just keep everything covered until the feds can get there.

I left out federal LEOs because post offices are still within US jurisdiction and federal LEOs are still within their investigative boundaries in there.

Lord
01-08-2012, 14:41
What crime done at a post office would state/local cops investigate or respond to? State/local cops do not respond to or investigate federal laws. Anything that interferes with the mail is federal. When they de-federalized the post office workers they didn't take the mail infractions out of the US Code. That's why Postal Inspectors are series 1811 federal investigators. Oh, I'm sure there are some where the local guys are the first responders but they mostly just keep everything covered until the feds can get there.

I left out federal LEOs because post offices are still within US jurisdiction and federal LEOs are still within their investigative boundaries in there.

They didn't de-federalize the postal workers. As proven in your own previous posts, as well as mine above, the post office is a federal agency and its employees are federal employees. that being said, you are correct in one regard... a federal agency, the USPS, will investigate crimes committed therein.

HerrGlock
01-08-2012, 15:33
They didn't de-federalize the postal workers. As proven in your own previous posts, as well as mine above, the post office is a federal agency and its employees are federal employees. that being said, you are correct in one regard... a federal agency, the USPS, will investigate crimes committed therein.

You still haven't gotten it. How does the federal government define federal employees?

TITLE 5
TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY (§§ 101—913)
PART II—CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES (§§ 1101—1508)
PART III—EMPLOYEES (§§ 2101—10210)

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.


___________________________
Title 5 is the definition of federal employee. There is no other reason for that part of the US Code other than to define what is and is not a federal employee. That paragraph (e) was put there in taking postal workers out of the federal employee definition thus making them NOT federal employees.

Bruce M
01-08-2012, 15:40
What crime done at a post office would state/local cops investigate or respond to? State/local cops do not respond to or investigate federal laws....

Local agencies get called all the time regarding theft of mail which may be a state crime in addition to a federal crime. Some Post Offices even call local police for burglaries and vandalism. Local officers can and do effect arrests at Post Offices for violations of state law. Sometimes they can even get a nice commendation letter from the Postal Inspection Service. I know of a guy who started yelling in a Post Office that he was going to get his AK and shoot them. He was booked into a county jail on state charges.

That said I am quite certain the the Inspectors or Postal Police would prosecute for a firearms violation if they felt it necessary and I am quite certain it would be prosecuted in Federal Court.

HerrGlock
01-08-2012, 15:47
Local agencies get called all the time regarding theft of mail which may be a state crime in addition to a federal crime. Some Post Offices even call local police for burglaries and vandalism. Local officers can and do effect arrests at Post Offices for violations of state law. Sometimes they can even get a nice commendation letter from the Postal Inspection Service. I know of a guy who started yelling in a Post Office that he was going to get his AK and shoot them. He was booked into a county jail on state charges.

That said I am quite certain the the Inspectors or Postal Police would prosecute for a firearms violation if they felt it necessary and I am quite certain it would be prosecuted in Federal Court.

Ahhh, probably. The only times I've been out to one was for federal stuff.

Makes sense, though.

(edit) I have to say I was thinking more about a cop mailing a package while in uniform, though.

Booker
01-08-2012, 15:56
First and foremost, I absolutely hate the PO rule.

We can search through trillions of lines of federal regulations for a technicality that would imply carrying in a Post Office is legal.

However, it is a general rule that carrying or possesing a firearm on any Federal Property is illegal.

This was covered in my CHL class with some vigor.

Then how does one hunt on Federal Property in your State?

Lord
01-08-2012, 15:59
You still haven't gotten it. How does the federal government define federal employees?

TITLE 5
TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I—THE AGENCIES GENERALLY (§§ 101—913)
PART II—CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES (§§ 1101—1508)
PART III—EMPLOYEES (§§ 2101—10210)

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§ 2105. Employee

(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title.


___________________________
Title 5 is the definition of federal employee. There is no other reason for that part of the US Code other than to define what is and is not a federal employee. That paragraph (e) was put there in taking postal workers out of the federal employee definition thus making them NOT federal employees.

And you still don't get how to read a law. That doesn't say that a postal worker is not a federal employee... it says "Except as otherwise provided by law (meaning that the law states it is a federal agency, and they are federal employees), but for the purposes of this article they are not deemed employees F O R-T H E-P U R P O S E S-O F-T H I S-T I T L E (indicating that this title is identifying the Postal regulatory Commission and the Postal SERVICE for the purposes of THIS ARTICLE ONLY

Lord
01-08-2012, 16:04
Then how does one hunt on Federal Property in your State?

Because if you're allowed to hunt on federal property, it's because the federal government says you can . Use common sense. Sheesh.

I've posted articles and law, and have discussed with Attorneys and professors that say it's a federal agency and they are federal employees. That other ignoramus keeps posting an article that he alone keeps interpreting to read that they are not, and it's an article about an appointed commission and not the USPS. Ridiculous. if you really want to know, get caught at the PO and see how deeply they probe with the microscope.. good luck with that.

Booker
01-08-2012, 16:28
Because if you're allowed to hunt on federal property, it's because the federal government says you can . Use common sense. Sheesh.
I've posted articles and law, and have discussed with Attorneys and professors that say it's a federal agency and they are federal employees. That other ignoramus keeps posting an article that he alone keeps interpreting to read that they are not, and it's an article about an appointed commission and not the USPS. Ridiculous. if you really want to know, get caught at the PO and see how deeply they probe with the microscope.. good luck with that.

I asked a honest question because, unlike you, I don't pretend to know all the laws across the country. The poster I question said that he was informed in his ccw class that it was illegal to have guns on Federal Property.

If one can hunt on Federal Property in his State, then the blanket statement given to him is in error.

kensteele
01-08-2012, 17:10
...that he was informed in his ccw class that it was illegal to have guns on Federal Property.

Yes, that exact statement is not entirely true. There are several hundred reasons why and how guns on federal property are lawful. However, if you take the statement in the proper context, it would be true: "...that he was informed in his ccw class that it was illegal to CCW guns on Federal Property deemed as off limits."

Do not ccw on federal property unless you have written permission or it is legal by statute or law.

Properly refer to them as postal employees, not federal employees or civilians.

Is the President's a federal employee?

Lord
01-08-2012, 19:18
I asked a honest question because, unlike you, I don't pretend to know all the laws across the country. The poster I question said that he was informed in his ccw class that it was illegal to have guns on Federal Property.

If one can hunt on Federal Property in his State, then the blanket statement given to him is in error.

I don't pretend to know all the laws in the country. What I posted came from written law, which I posted to back up my statements, and was also information that came from a US Attorney, and Criminal Justice professor.

You're right about the blanket statement, and in checking the post again, I see the "tone" you meant in retrospect. No disrespect to you, you were right in your question.

also, didn't they change the laws to allow CCW in national parks now?

RussP
01-09-2012, 04:49
Start here http://about.usps.com/publications/pub100/pub100_035.htm and continue reading by clicking the Next> button on each page.