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 10-22-2009, 17:11   #1
Chucktown Mako
G23
 
Chucktown Mako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: On the Coast, SC
Posts: 132
News for SC CWP from SLED 10/20

This is from my CWP instructor. He had a meeting last night with other instructors and SLED. Looks like you can now carry in Post Office's!

At last night's CWP Instructor's meeting, SLED told us that:

1. Concealed carry in a post office is okay. You just can't
go behind the counter.

2. SLED cannot pull your fingerprints off of the computer database,
so you have to submit two paper fingerprint cards. We have lots
of these cards. So, if you need, just ask us.

3. There are 99,000 active CWPs in South Carolina.

4. South Carolina has reciprocity with: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

5. If you have a CWP you may not carry in a school. However,
you may leave the gun in an attended or locked motor vehicle if it
is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed
trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and
transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.
Section 2. Section 16-23-420(A) of the 1976 Code as last amended
by Act 294 of 2004 as further amended. This act takes effect upon
approval by the Governor. Ratified the 27th day of May 2009.
Approved the 2nd day of June 2009.

6. If you have legal questions, feel free to ask us. If we cannot
answer your questions, we will forward them to SLED and they have
been very good about answering our questions.
Chucktown Mako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 17:37   #2
RichardB
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
RichardB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,447
No guns in post office

This new case law seems to contradict what you heard. Looks like parking lots are off limits also.

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/21/n...-post-offices/

Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices
Oregon Firearms Federation

Oregon Firearms Federation

Salem, Oregon - -(AmmoLand.com)-For some time there has been confusion about the legality of carrying a firearm in a Post Office.

Many Post Offices have signs posted stating it is unlawful. However, Federal law does NOT prohibit possession of firearms in Post Offices for “any lawful purpose.”

In our book “Understanding Oregon’s Gun Laws” we stated that we knew of no successful prosecutions for persons carrying guns in Post Offices, but otherwise committing no crime.

Unfortunately we now have one.

It’s important to note that the conviction stemmed not from any violation of law, but of a violation of a “rule” which is a very troubling development.

To see the entire ruling, read below or use this link :

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...1197.0.wpd.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 08-31197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee v. CLARENCE PAUL DOROSAN,
Defendant – Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 08-CR-42-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Clarence Paul Dorosan appeals his conviction of violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) for bringing a handgun onto property belonging to the United States Postal Service. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

Dorosan raises one argument on appeal: The regulation under which he was convicted violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 555 U.S. —-, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2822 (2008). Assuming Dorosan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying a handgun in his car, Dorosan’s challenge nonetheless fails.

First, the Postal Service owned the parking lot where Dorosan’s handgun was found, and its restrictions on guns stemmed from its constitutional authority as the property owner. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3 cl. 2; United States v. Gliatta, 580 F.2d 156, 160 (5th Cir. 1978). This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power that was the source of the ban addressed in Heller. See 128 S. Ct. at 2787-88 (noting the laws in question “generally prohibit[ed] the possession of handguns” anywhere in the city).

Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the “sensitive places” exception recognized by Heller. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (holding that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .”).

Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site. Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.

In conclusion, the above-stated facts do not compel us to hold that § 232.1(l) as applied to Dorosan is unconstitutional under any applicable level of scrutiny.

Oregon Firearms Federation
PO Box 556
Canby, OR 97013
Voice: (503) 263-5830
www.oregonfirearms.org
__________________
Richard

“Food for thought is no substitute for the real thing”
RichardB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 20:18   #3
Glockrunner
HOOYA DEEPSEA
 
Glockrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SC
Posts: 4,797
Send a message via Yahoo to Glockrunner
The Parking Lot in question is the lot that the postal workers park in, not, the public side.
__________________
"As an OK State Trooper once told me, "Why shouldn't a "good" citizen be allowed to carry a gun, all the "bad" guys already do.""
Certified Glock Armorer
Glockrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 07:08   #4
Chucktown Mako
G23
 
Chucktown Mako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: On the Coast, SC
Posts: 132
Correct, Glockrunner. It is/was the law, he should have parked somewhere else.

It has always been illegal to carry on any federally owned property. I am trying to get some clarification on the news. I would not carry into PO until I know for sure. Good way to get a lifetime firearms ban.
Chucktown Mako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 17:06   #5
ColdbarrelZero
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
My wife works for the city of charlston and parks in a designated parking deck which is federal property so technicaly she is not allowed to carry in our vehicle. About a year ago she was nearly carjacked and she was unarmed. If not for police being nearby who knows what may have happened? Since then i innsist she carry in console. What is your opinion?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
ColdbarrelZero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 05:21   #6
Glockrunner
HOOYA DEEPSEA
 
Glockrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SC
Posts: 4,797
Send a message via Yahoo to Glockrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdbarrelZero View Post
My wife works for the city of charlston and parks in a designated parking deck which is federal property so technicaly she is not allowed to carry in our vehicle. About a year ago she was nearly carjacked and she was unarmed. If not for police being nearby who knows what may have happened? Since then i innsist she carry in console. What is your opinion?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
I would have to say, have her park in another lot. I guess then she would to gain access thru the "designated parking deck" to get in at work.
__________________
"As an OK State Trooper once told me, "Why shouldn't a "good" citizen be allowed to carry a gun, all the "bad" guys already do.""
Certified Glock Armorer
Glockrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2012, 05:39   #7
Fisherman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 161
Thanks for the info. We're one of the better states to live in for reasonable CCW but this demonstrates that we still need to keep up with current rulings.
Fisherman 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 22:45.




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


Users Currently Online: 890
214 Members
676 Guests

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