Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: USPS Carry (OC or CC)

  1. #1
    Regular Member CitizenJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Clark County, WA
    Posts
    57

    USPS Carry (OC or CC)

    Follow this link to read an article, albeit anti-gun, concerning a recent Denver District Court decision concerning leaving a firearm locked in a motor vehicle while in the USPS parking lot. Don't fail to read the last paragraph though. Go figure.

    http://smartgunlaws.org/extreme-dist...e-parking-lot/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pointy end and slightly to the left
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenJohn View Post
    Follow this link to read an article, albeit anti-gun, concerning a recent Denver District Court decision concerning leaving a firearm locked in a motor vehicle while in the USPS parking lot. Don't fail to read the last paragraph though. Go figure.

    http://smartgunlaws.org/extreme-dist...e-parking-lot/
    Taken from the article “The court then found—quite correctly—that the post office building itself was a sensitive place where restrictions on the right to bear arms were presumably justified”

    Every mass shooting has taken place in a gun free zone. As we all know a gun free zone is a target rich killing zone. I would not classify the post office as a sensitive place however as a dangerous target rich area for the next derange mass murder.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    If this decision is allowed to stand, it would allow guns to be brought within a few feet of all sorts of government buildings, which could gravely endanger the safety of everyone who uses those buildings.
    The conclusion does not follow the premise. They're never going to say 'how it would gravely endanger the safety of EVERYONE who uses the building'.

    It will only endanger the safety of criminals and mass murderers who would use the building, and only then if someone who was nearby happened to notice and cared to intervene - most don't, they exit for their own safety.
    Last edited by Maverick9; 09-27-2013 at 08:07 PM.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    The Supreme Court is not a real court. It’s like the House of Lords; nothing more than a quasi-political body.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The Supreme Court is not a real court. It’s like the House of Lords; nothing more than a quasi-political body.
    +1 Political connected lawyer oligarchs in black robes. They should be made to wear powder wigs.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Wow. Serious denial of reality in those last two posts. Barring some sea change, the Supreme Court wields a lot more power than the House of Lords.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Wow. Serious denial of reality in those last two posts. Barring some sea change, the Supreme Court wields a lot more power than the House of Lords.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Nope a serious recognition that the court has gone way beyond it's courtly functions of simply judging. They have also thrown out justice, that isn't part of their repertoire any more.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Nope a serious recognition that the court has gone way beyond it's courtly functions of simply judging. They have also thrown out justice, that isn't part of their repertoire any more.
    Nope. Your analogy implies that it is powerless, like the House of Lords. You may think it goes to far, but you cannot reasonably dispute the power it weilds.

    BTW, if there is a dispute in what the law says or means, is it not judging to settle the question?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    To ALL Whom are Concerned:

    United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 930 Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm Actually Inisde a Federal Facility.

    Nothing under Federal Law Prohibits a Firearm Outside of a Federal Facility, though.

    In This State, wherein The Lawsuit was brought, Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104 Allows a Local Governmental Unit to Prohibit Open Carry in a Specific Building within that Local Governmental Units' Jurisdiction.

    Both Statutes Use The Preposition 'in', and are therefore, Similiar to one another. Neither Statute, State or Federal, Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm 'on' Government Property, but rather, 'in' a Government Building.

    aadvark

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    To ALL Whom are Concerned:

    United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 930 Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm Actually Inisde a Federal Facility.

    Nothing under Federal Law Prohibits a Firearm Outside of a Federal Facility, though.

    In This State, wherein The Lawsuit was brought, Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104 Allows a Local Governmental Unit to Prohibit Open Carry in a Specific Building within that Local Governmental Units' Jurisdiction.

    Both Statutes Use The Preposition 'in', and are therefore, Similiar to one another. Neither Statute, State or Federal, Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm 'on' Government Property, but rather, 'in' a Government Building.

    aadvark
    I was under the impression that there is a code section specific to post offices that includes all property of the post office--including outside space that belongs to the post office. If I am wrong, please let me know.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    To ALL Whom are Concerned:

    United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 930 Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm Actually Inisde a Federal Facility.

    Nothing under Federal Law Prohibits a Firearm Outside of a Federal Facility, though.

    In This State, wherein The Lawsuit was brought, Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104 Allows a Local Governmental Unit to Prohibit Open Carry in a Specific Building within that Local Governmental Units' Jurisdiction.

    Both Statutes Use The Preposition 'in', and are therefore, Similiar to one another. Neither Statute, State or Federal, Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm 'on' Government Property, but rather, 'in' a Government Building.

    aadvark
    18 USC 930 does not apply to Post Office property.

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930.

    39 CFR 232.1 prohibits firearms on Post Office Property.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Thanks. That is what I thought was the case.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Interestingly enough I have just today come to need to know the legalities of carrying "around about" but not "inside" post offices.
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Interestingly enough I have just today come to need to know the legalities of carrying "around about" but not "inside" post offices.
    Just remember that having your dog or cat in your car in a Post Office parking lot is just as illegal as having a firearm there. Unless of course it's a service animal.

  15. #15
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    18 USC 930 does not apply to Post Office property.

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930.

    39 CFR 232.1 prohibits firearms on Post Office Property.
    So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then... Hmm.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then... Hmm.
    A dangerous misrepresentation. From the CFR cited above:

    Weapons and explosives. 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.
    If you leave your firearm in you car while inside, you have "stored" it there. That car had better not be on postal property.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/410

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-200...1-sec232-1.xml

    I wonder if the term "curtilage" means anything. The PO in my town has street, sidewalk, PO walkway to front door. The sidewalk and street are not PO property if I read 39/232.1 correctly.

    If in doubt, ask a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then... Hmm.
    Correct, but there is a duly authorized Federal Regulation, which I can guarantee you will put you in Federal Prison just a quickly.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    There is no law that says carry on a military installation is illegal. However, carry on one where regulations prohibit it, and I guarantee that you have violated the law.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  20. #20
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There is no law that says carry on a military installation is illegal. However, carry on one where regulations prohibit it, and I guarantee that you have violated the law.
    I disagree. The law is the law, regulations are not. I'm not saying you won't suffer consequences, and in fact made no conclusions whatsoever other than it is not a matter of law that firearms are prohibited in the parking lot of a Post Office.

    That said, it would appear to me to be an overreach to punish an offender as if they had violated the law. We have a constitutionally-defined method for enacting laws in this country for a reason. Extra-legal regulations like this one subvert that process. Regulations should be in place to define procedures for and implement the law, not expand it.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    USPS Carry (OC or CC)

    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    I disagree. The law is the law, regulations are not. I'm not saying you won't suffer consequences, and in fact made no conclusions whatsoever other than it is not a matter of law that firearms are prohibited in the parking lot of a Post Office.

    That said, it would appear to me to be an overreach to punish an offender as if they had violated the law. We have a constitutionally-defined method for enacting laws in this country for a reason. Extra-legal regulations like this one subvert that process. Regulations should be in place to define procedures for and implement the law, not expand it.
    Well, I'll tell you what, you go ahead and carry on a military base or at a post office and watch what happens. BTW, I guarantee you that violating a base regulation on firearms will break the LAW.

    Folks, don't let the distinction between USC (United States Code) and CFR (Codified Federal Regulations) fool you. In many cases, Congress has given a federal agency authority to make rules and has made violating those rules a violation of the law.

    Should the legislative branch be able to cede their authority to define specific actions to be crimes to the executive branch? IMO, no! Can they? Yep. Violating a regulation is often also violating the law.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    <O>
    Last edited by eye95; 11-19-2013 at 04:41 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    I disagree. The law is the law, regulations are not. I'm not saying you won't suffer consequences, and in fact made no conclusions whatsoever other than it is not a matter of law that firearms are prohibited in the parking lot of a Post Office.

    That said, it would appear to me to be an overreach to punish an offender as if they had violated the law. We have a constitutionally-defined method for enacting laws in this country for a reason. Extra-legal regulations like this one subvert that process. Regulations should be in place to define procedures for and implement the law, not expand it.
    A distinction without a difference in the real world, I'm afraid.

  23. #23
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer
    39 CFR 232.1 prohibits firearms on Post Office Property.
    Thank you for posting this! I was wanting to add it to my classes and hadn't looked it up yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter
    So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then.
    Yes, there's 39CFR232.1 Why do you think it's not a law?
    What would it take to get you to believe it's a law?

    I think having the section about animals in there should make it easier to make it clear that the PO is only allowed to control what comes in the building, not the parking lot.

    And has anyone ever challenged the firearm prohibition based on the "except for official purposes" clause?
    If I'm there to mail something or get a passport I'm there for official purposes.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Interestingly enough I have just today come to need to know the legalities of carrying "around about" but not "inside" post offices.
    I don't see a difference between outside the building (but still USPS property) and inside the building in the CFR.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    ...And has anyone ever challenged the firearm prohibition based on the "except for official purposes" clause?
    If I'm there to mail something or get a passport I'm there for official purposes.
    No person while on postal property may carry firearms, ...either openly or concealed, ...except for official purposes.
    I can see the argument that the firearm must be part of the official purpose. Else the only people who would not be exempt would be loiterers.

    I like the way you think, but if that were the case, that whole paragraph would not have been written.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •