GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-11-2012, 07:38   #26
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rules View Post
Remember, it's not just the post office, and not just the federal building, it's the entire property - including the parking lot.

Park your car somewhere else.
Yup! I've thought about this, too. Know what? There must be hundreds - if not thousands - of people in Pennsylvania who violate this regulation everyday, 5 days each week! (I'm NOT saying these people are lawbreakers; I'm simply saying that I'm certain numerous Pennsylvanians carry their EDC's into post offices everyday of the week.)
Arc Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 07:57   #27
ROGER4314
Senior Member
 
ROGER4314's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Houston
Posts: 212
This is one of those things that you might buck. In the end, it will cost you about $20K to do it but if it's that important to you, I say "Party On!"

I ditch my CHL handgun before I enter the Bank or Post Office. I prefer to pick my fights and will battle over something more important to me. Right or wrong isn't the issue. Are you willing to commit a big chunk of your life savings to make the point?

Flash
__________________
You gotta die of something.....It may as well be something that you like!

Loving the Harley idle....potato, potato, potato.
ROGER4314 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 08:23   #28
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,060
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
Old 10-11-2012, 08:34   #29
HerrGlock
CLM Number 2
Scouts Out
 
HerrGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 64,418


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rules View Post
Remember, it's not just the post office, and not just the federal building, it's the entire property - including the parking lot.

Park your car somewhere else.
Two questions here:

1) What does a federal building have to do with a Post Office?
and
2) What law forbids a handgun in your car in a Post Office parking lot?
__________________
Sent from my rotary phone
"The way I see it as soon as a baby is born, he should be issued a banjo!"- Linus Van Pelt
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins any more
HerrGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 08:48   #30
HerrGlock
CLM Number 2
Scouts Out
 
HerrGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 64,418


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
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.
That's a lot of words to say you have nothing about carrying on PO property.

Postal Inspectors are series 1811, federal employees, who uphold federal laws. No one is disputing that.

Postal Employees are not federal employees.

Your continuing to use burglary stuff has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I can show you in black and white where postal employees are not federal employees.

I can show you in black and white where theft of mail is a federal offense.

You cannot show me in black and white where carrying a firearm is illegal. If it were illegal to have a firearm on postal property, then how could it possibly be legal to mail a rifle?

I can also show you where if "or for official purposes" is not a legit defense, the max they could give you is
Quote:
(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.
but you still cannot show me where it's written illegal to carry onto postal property as that above would only be within the building.
__________________
Sent from my rotary phone
"The way I see it as soon as a baby is born, he should be issued a banjo!"- Linus Van Pelt
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins any more
HerrGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 08:54   #31
Psychman
NRA Life Member
 
Psychman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROGER4314 View Post
This is one of those things that you might buck. In the end, it will cost you about $20K to do it but if it's that important to you, I say "Party On!"

I ditch my CHL handgun before I enter the Bank or Post Office. I prefer to pick my fights and will battle over something more important to me. Right or wrong isn't the issue. Are you willing to commit a big chunk of your life savings to make the point?

Flash

Just curious, why not carry concealed in the bank?

I can't think of a better place to protect yourself than a bank including walking to the bank from your car and walking back to your car from the bank.
__________________
NRA Life Member

NCOWS
Hey, I just love guns.
Psychman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 08:55   #32
hivel9mm
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROGER4314 View Post
This is one of those things that you might buck. In the end, it will cost you about $20K to do it but if it's that important to you, I say "Party On!"

I ditch my CHL handgun before I enter the Bank or Post Office. I prefer to pick my fights and will battle over something more important to me. Right or wrong isn't the issue. Are you willing to commit a big chunk of your life savings to make the point?

Flash

Why do you disarm before entering a bank? Is it properly posted in accordance to the Texas Penal Code with the 30.06 sign? If not, then it is legal to carry there.
hivel9mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 08:57   #33
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,060
If you are certain that 18 USC 930 does definitely not apply to a US Post Office I am presuming that you have no hesitation to carry into a Post Office. As I said I would be reluctant to want to test that theory.
__________________
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
Old 10-11-2012, 08:58   #34
Filhar
Senior Member
 
Filhar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So Wi
Posts: 197
"Besides, as every well-informed American citizen knows: It's the guys ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POST OFFICE COUNTER that you really have to worry about!) "


What an uninformed stupid remark. There's no excuse for ignorance.

Last edited by Filhar; 10-11-2012 at 09:07..
Filhar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 10:07   #35
Booker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filhar View Post
"Besides, as every well-informed American citizen knows: It's the guys ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POST OFFICE COUNTER that you really have to worry about!) "


What an uninformed stupid remark. There's no excuse for ignorance.
Why? To the best of my knowledge, most massacres at the Post Office have been done by Post Office Workers, hence the term, "Going Postal"

To the OP's question, Yes, I carry at the Post Office.
Booker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 11:41   #36
Lior
GUNS=FREEDOM
 
Lior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 5,783


Sure, I carried in my post office yesterday. Didn't make attempts to impress other customers of my armed status though.
__________________
Rust and bureaucrats. Freedom and vigilance. Front sight and trigger. Kindness and firepower. Situational awareness and tolerance. Safety and concealment. Taxes and allegiance. Love of man and surgical marksmanship. Once a soldier, always a soldier.
Lior is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:08   #37
smokeross
GTDS Member #49
 
smokeross's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 4,144
I might have to shoot the lock off my box if I forget my key.
__________________
Originally Posted by GTFor died instantly because his lungs froze from breathing in Arctic air.
Shoot Low Boys, They're Riding Shetland Ponies.
smokeross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 13:29   #38
4Rules
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
Two questions here:

1) What does a federal building have to do with a Post Office?
and
2) What law forbids a handgun in your car in a Post Office parking lot?
handgunlaw.us is a great resource. Anyone with any questions should go there first, but here are a few links that might be related to the thread topic:

39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.
Quote:
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to— (i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;
(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.
_ _ _

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1
40 USC § 1315 - Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
Quote:
(a) In General.— To the extent provided for by transfers made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to as the “Secretary”) shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property. (b) Officers and Agents.— (1) Designation.— The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.
(2) Powers.— While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may— (A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
(B) carry firearms;
(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;
(D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States;
(E) conduct investigations, on and off the property in question, of offenses that may have been committed against property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or persons on the property; and
(F) carry out such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315
18 USC § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
Quote:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930
YMMV
4Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 14:03   #39
Jud325
Senior Member
 
Jud325's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Shelocta, Pa.
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROGER4314 View Post
This is one of those things that you might buck. In the end, it will cost you about $20K to do it but if it's that important to you, I say "Party On!"

I ditch my CHL handgun before I enter the Bank or Post Office. I prefer to pick my fights and will battle over something more important to me. Right or wrong isn't the issue. Are you willing to commit a big chunk of your life savings to make the point?

Flash
I OC in my bank.
Jud325 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 15:44   #40
HerrGlock
CLM Number 2
Scouts Out
 
HerrGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 64,418


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Rules View Post
So you've completely missed the entire discussion about the fact that Title 18 930 doesn't pertain to post offices and that there are no federal employees at a post office so there is no federal facility to consider.

Also missed the fact that the CFR has already been posted, by me, about carrying and the "except for official purposes" part where if I'm going in to buy stamps, I do believe that's an official purpose for a post office.

Plus there is at least one court case where a conviction for firearm in a post office parking lot was thrown out and zero for a conviction of that sole charge. NOT and "and a" charge, a sole charge.

There is a single case where a postal employee had a firearm in the "employees only" parking lot and was convicted of that but that was a limited access lot and not the general public lot so that's a different scenario from me going in to get stamps.

You might want to actually read the thread to see if what you're posting was already discussed.
__________________
Sent from my rotary phone
"The way I see it as soon as a baby is born, he should be issued a banjo!"- Linus Van Pelt
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins any more
HerrGlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 16:41   #41
Jason D
Silver Membership
INFRINGED!
 
Jason D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Mivonks, MI
Posts: 41,432
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.
__________________
An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. 1. 10/27/1787
Jason D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 16:45   #42
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
So you've completely missed the entire discussion about the fact that Title 18 930 doesn't pertain to post offices ..
.
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/Pres...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.
__________________
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
Old 10-11-2012, 18:26   #43
Gary Slider
Senior Member
 
Gary Slider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 427
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...1197.0.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.
__________________
Stay Safe,
Gary Slider
Co-Owner Handgunlaw.us
Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
Gary Slider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:25   #44
4Rules
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,666
Thank you.
4Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 05:22   #45
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filhar View Post
"Besides, as every well-informed American citizen knows: It's the guys ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POST OFFICE COUNTER that you really have to worry about!) "


What an uninformed stupid remark. There's no excuse for ignorance.
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/ny...ted=all&src=pm
Arc Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 07:17   #46
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,281
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.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 07:30   #47
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,635
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Title 39 - Postal Service

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
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?"
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 07:37   #48
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
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?"
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!




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 07:46   #49
Gary Slider
Senior Member
 
Gary Slider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 427
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.
__________________
Stay Safe,
Gary Slider
Co-Owner Handgunlaw.us
Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

Last edited by Gary Slider; 10-12-2012 at 07:50..
Gary Slider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 08:22   #50
Arc Angel
Deus Vult!
 
Arc Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Penn's Woods
Posts: 10,956
Blog Entries: 55
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...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!)
Arc Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:11.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,042
288 Members
754 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42