View Single Post
Old 10-11-2012, 08:23   #28
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
Here, I'll help you out too.

Here are all the US Code sections that are in Title 18 and have to do with mail and mail property:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...t-I/chapter-83

Theft, destruction, mailing firearms, falsification, obstruction of mail, etc are all covered. Those are exactly what you're talking about with the burglarizing of the USPS facility.

Now, show me where any of that has anything to do with carrying a firearm on USPS property, please.

I am uncertain that those are the only sections of Title 18 that have to do with the Post Office. Here is a guy who was convicted of burglary http://openjurist.org/821/f2d/1306/u...ates-v-burkett including maybe one or two other sections of Title 18, including section 1361 which seems to be destruction of any government property, not specifically just Post Offices.

You are welcome to the thought that the part of Title 18 that governs carrying of firearms on US Property does not apply to the Post Office because the Post Office is a private corporation. My concern with that is that unlike most private corporations, the US Post Office appears to have its very own police department and Inspection Service who seem to have powers of arrest and the ability to prosecute and convict using any of several sections of Title 18, some of which specifically reference the Postal Service and some of which seem to be very generic sections that apply to all federal facilities.

As I said you don't have to specifically convince me that the part of Title 18 that covers carrying firearms in federal facilities does not apply to the Post Office. But someone may end up having to convince the Postal Inspection Service or more expensively an assistant US Attorney or far more expensively a federal court judge that that section does not apply. I will join the list of those here who would opt out of that attempt.

I agree with the thought that this ultimately may have to be clarified in federal court. I am certain that would be very expensive. I am also certain that some on one side of the court would suggest that the legslative intent of Title 18 was clear.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote