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, 16:41   #41
Jason D
Silver Membership
INFRINGED!
 
Jason D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Mivonks, MI
Posts: 41,939
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: 22,641
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 online now   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: 440
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

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: 1,882
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: 6,875
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
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ 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: 44,546
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: 6,875
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
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ 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: 440
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

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
Old 10-12-2012, 08:26   #51
cysoto
Gone Shooting!
 
cysoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,919
Are You Illegally Carrying Concealed at the Post Office?: http://www.usacarry.com/carrying-concealed-post-office/
__________________
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." — Stuart Chase
cysoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 08:38   #52
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Slider View Post
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. ....

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

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

"(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." 39 CFR 232 (p)
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:54   #53
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,546
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
I suspect that this regulation may have been written exactly that way to be able to be used or not used as desired. It gives people at several levels lots of discretion and options.

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

"(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." 39 CFR 232 (p)
Then we need to reconcile with this:
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.
__________________
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

Last edited by RussP; 10-12-2012 at 09:56..
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:54   #54
fuzzy03cls
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,744
YMMV...from my understanding of everything I have researched, I don't consider the PO as a federal office or the postal property.
I treat it like any business.
That said I rarely go into one. If I need a service from the PO I use the contracted places.
fuzzy03cls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 10:17   #55
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,546
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy03cls View Post
YMMV...from my understanding of everything I have researched, I don't consider the PO as a federal office or the postal property.
I treat it like any business.
That said I rarely go into one. If I need a service from the PO I use the contracted places.
Quote:
Title 39 - Postal Service

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

(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.
What in your research contradicts this?
__________________
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, 16:37   #56
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Then we need to reconcile with this:

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

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

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

My guess (uneducated admittedly) is that 39 CFR 232 also does not abrogate 18 USC 930.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Bruce M; 10-12-2012 at 16:45..
Bruce M is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 16:43   #57
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy03cls View Post
YMMV...from my understanding of everything I have researched, I don't consider the PO as a federal office or the postal property.
I treat it like any business.
That said I rarely go into one. If I need a service from the PO I use the contracted places.
Unfortunately at least at times the federal court does seem to treat the post office as federal property. At the risk of repeating myself here is a case in which a guy was convicted of several crimes for a burglary of a post office including a conviction for 18 USC 1361 which prohibits damaging federal property. I think the section has an alarming lack of anything that specifically mentions the post office but merely mentions federal property. http://openjurist.org/821/f2d/1306/u...ates-v-burkett
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 16:47   #58
fwm
Senior Member
 
fwm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Central US
Posts: 3,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerrGlock View Post
May be but if you're going into a post office for stamps, isn't that one of the official uses of a post office?

This one's going to get into the courts a few times before it's ironed out. Right now even the post office is posting horse feathers with some of the signs actually stating the US Code forbids carry there.
I read the 'official business' as meaning LEO or anyone else carrying in and 'official' capacity.

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

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


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

ETA 2: Whoops, there is was up above 232.1

On the other hand, concealed means concealed.
__________________
fwm

Last edited by fwm; 10-12-2012 at 16:56..
fwm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 01:03   #59
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 17,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton Wayne View Post
Concealed is concealed

OH and IBTL
That is what I hear.

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

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

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool songs:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool car:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by JuneyBooney; 10-13-2012 at 01:31..
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 01:06   #60
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 17,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What in your research contradicts this?
A liberal anti gun person thinks guns are horrible and that postal property is off limits unless a leo. A conservative pro gun guy thinks that unless you are there to rob the place that packing a firearm is perfectly legal.

I think that sums it up well.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool songs:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Cool car:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
JuneyBooney 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 23:28.




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


Users Currently Online: 916
205 Members
711 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31