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 10-12-2012, 08:26   #51
cysoto
Gone Shooting!
 
cysoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,891
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: 20,068
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: 42,638
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: 42,638
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: 20,068
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: 20,068
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: 2,995
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: 15,419
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.

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: 15,419
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.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 01:13   #61
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBurna View Post
I know it's a HUGE "NO-NO!!" I had someone admit to me he did accidentally as he was out running errands and such... He got to the counter to buy a book of stamps... Then it hit him as he went to get the money out of his pocket.... An LCP!!!

He played it off and no one notices. Needless to say the SCARE of his life....I told him "U dodged a bullet today dude!!"

I told him "LESSON LEARNED" stop, think, and read signs! In addition OBEY FEDERAL LAW!! I liken his experience to a kid cutting the tag off a pillow or mattress!

Be careful & stay vigilant fellas!!
Don't you agree that it would be very stupid to stop the car, take the gun off the belt in plain view, place it in the trunk, walk in the post office for thirty second and ten feet, open the box, and then walk out, open the trunk, grab the gun, reholster without shooting yourself etc? Wouldn't it be smarter to leave the darn thing in the holster, walk in ten feet, grab your mail and walk out?
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 08:46   #62
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,638
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by fwm View Post
Part of my job is reading government laws and rulings and redistributing the meaning to businesses in plain language.
What is your take on this?
Quote:
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
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 09:52   #63
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,167
One thing being over looked here.

No state, county, or city LEO has any jurisdiction on federal property. UNLESS there is some kind of arrangement between the PO and an agency or the Post master requests assistance. or makes an arrangement with the agency beforehand.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 11:02   #64
HerrGlock
CLM Number 2
Scouts Out
 
HerrGlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 64,419


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
One thing being over looked here.

No state, county, or city LEO has any jurisdiction on federal property. UNLESS there is some kind of arrangement between the PO and an agency or the Post master requests assistance. or makes an arrangement with the agency beforehand.
SHHHHHH! It's fun to watch the gyrations
__________________
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 10-13-2012, 11:13   #65
Clutch Cargo
Amsterdam Haze
 
Clutch Cargo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,059
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.
My post office is in a privately owned strip mall. The USPS is just another tenant.
__________________
GTDS
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Clutch Cargo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 11:26   #66
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,638
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Cargo View Post
My post office is in a privately owned strip mall. The USPS is just another tenant.
Good point, however, that would only make a difference in the parking lot and the sidewalks. Once you cross the threshold of the USPS leased space, you are inside a USPS property by virtue of their leasehold rights.
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.
__________________
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 10-13-2012, 11:53   #67
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,541
Thankfully I already buy my postage for packages online, since it's a bit cheaper. Looks like I'll be arranging pickup for my packages too, since they won't let me carry inside of a post office. But I would like to see a set definition of "official business".
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 11:55   #68
NC Bullseye
Senior Member
 
NC Bullseye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Foothills
Posts: 961
If only I was a ninja.


Then non of this would matter.


Do ninjas get the tactical badges and sashes too?
NC Bullseye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 12:12   #69
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
If only I was a ninja.


Then non of this would matter.


Do ninjas get the tactical badges and sashes too?
No, because there is no way to give them to them.

"Looked for they cannot be seen, felt for they cannot be touched."

__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 15:21   #70
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
One thing being over looked here.

No state, county, or city LEO has any jurisdiction on federal property. UNLESS there is some kind of arrangement between the PO and an agency or the Post master requests assistance. or makes an arrangement with the agency beforehand.
Am I following you correctly? It sounds like there IS no official local LEO business that can be conducted in the Post Office due to jurisdiction (absent agreements with the local agencies).

If that's the case, then the "official" business clause would seem to apply to "official business" regarding what's done at the post office, i.e. buying stamps vs the other interpretation "LEO on official business" at the PO.

I had always thought the "official business" clause referred to LEO in uniform performing official duties.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 10-13-2012 at 15:22..
steveksux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 15:49   #71
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 15,846
Six days a week, CCW G17 here in VT.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 15:59   #72
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Am I following you correctly? It sounds like there IS no official local LEO business that can be conducted in the Post Office due to jurisdiction (absent agreements with the local agencies).

If that's the case, then the "official" business clause would seem to apply to "official business" regarding what's done at the post office, i.e. buying stamps vs the other interpretation "LEO on official business" at the PO.

I had always thought the "official business" clause referred to LEO in uniform performing official duties.

Randy
My guess is that it'd be treated like private property, the local LEOs are not allowed in the post office for official duty unless they're invited in.

My advice would be to call up your local police station, using the non-emergency number, and ask them. I'm sure they'll be the ones that will be able to give you a definitive answer, since they're the ones you'd be dealing with if you get in trouble for carrying in a post office.

But if you consider a post office to be federal property, then I'd call your local FBI office, either instead of, or along with your local police station. Because if it's federal land, and you get in trouble, then you'd most likely be dealing with the FBI.

Either way, we're not going to be too much help here, since we're not going to be the ones you have to deal with if you get in trouble for carrying in a post office.
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 16:59   #73
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,167
Quote:
Am I following you correctly? It sounds like there IS no official local LEO business that can be conducted in the Post Office due to jurisdiction (absent agreements with the local agencies).
The rule does not say for official business it says for official purposes. LEO's are armed for official purposes (Not personal ones.)
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2012, 17:13   #74
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
My guess is that it'd be treated like private property, the local LEOs are not allowed in the post office for official duty unless they're invited in.

....

But if you consider a post office to be federal property, then I'd call your local FBI office, ....
Actually the question might be better asked of either the US Postal Inspection Service or the US Postal Police rather then the FBI.

And in a huge, perhaps majority of situations, local LEOs absolutely do not need an invitation to enforce laws on private property. In fact one of the laws that is sporadically enforced on private property in this state is Obstruction of Justice FSS 843, which well more than once, has found someone seated handcuffed in the back of a Criwn Vic or Monaco or a couple models in between (and possibly before) when they mistakenly thought they could deny the police entry.

But I digress from the topic at hand.


Here is a good treatise on jurisdiction on federal property.

http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...ranscript.html


And with due respect to Ms. Solari and Mr. Perry it seems in practice at least sometimes the Postal Service allows concurrent jurisdiction.
__________________
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 10-13-2012, 19:58   #75
sirgarreth
Senior Member
 
sirgarreth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 409
The post office is a private business, BUT it follows fedral regulations and federal laws. It is considered a federal building.Because of that, it has to follow federal rules. Unless you are LEO you are not allowed to carry in any PO. If its in a mall, you are fine until you step through the door of the PO. If anyone wants to carry in a PO, you go right ahead. I certainly will not. By the way, my uncle was a regional district manager for over 30 yearsand several other family members also work at other facilites. I might have a little insight.
__________________
Jorge
Glock 23 / 33
Kimber Pro Carry SLE
S&W 1911ES, S&W 6906, S&W M&P 9
sirgarreth 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 06:34.



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


Users Currently Online: 965
290 Members
675 Guests

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