Open carry in a federal facility - exceptions

Freedom1Man said:

Or any firearms prohibited signs.

Click to expand...

Bill Starks said:

FYI - Post Office public parking lots are now legal for carry

http://www.nationaljournal.com/dome...ar-arms-in-a-post-office-parking-lot-20130711

Tab Bonidy was polite enough to ask before he brought a gun into a Colorado post office. In 2010 his lawyer sent a letter to USPS asking whether Bonidy would be prosecuted if he brought a firearm inside the facility or left one in his car while, let's say, purchasing stamps. And he got a response.
According to Thursday's ruling by District Judge Richard Matsch, the USPS legal counsel responded to Bonidy, saying, "Regulations governing conduct on postal property prevent (Bonidy) from carrying firearms, openly or concealed, onto any real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service."
She was referring to Title 39 of the Federal Regulations, which dates back to 1972:

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.

​

Feeling his rights were being violated, Bonidy teamed up with the National Association for Gun Rights to file suit against this provision.
And they won. Well, at least partially. Judge Matsch maintained that USPS did violate Bonidy's rights by not permitting him to leave a gun in the trunk of his car. But guns inside the post office itself are still forbidden

Click to expand...

ORDERED, that the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner..."

Click to expand...

The Town of Avon, population 6,365, is high in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. The Avon Post Office is a freestanding building, with a 57-space parking lot reserved for Post Office patrons, and an employee parking lot behind the building. There are five public parking spaces in front of the Post Office on West Beaver Creek Boulevard. Parking on that street is prohibited when there are more than two inches of snow on the ground. The Avon Post Office does not provide delivery services to the public. It provides free post office boxes in an area of the Post Office that is open to the public at all times. The mail service counter opens and closes on a regular schedule. There are no security personnel or devices on the site. Access to the area behind the mail service counter, the mail sorting area, and the employee parking lot is restricted. Approximately 500 window customers are served at the Post Office each day it is in operation. The parking lot adjacent to the Avon postal building is openly available to the public. There is a sign at the front of the lot reading: “US POSTAL PROPERTY / 30 MINUTE PARKING / VIOLATORS WILL BE TOWED AT OWNERS EXPENSE.” That time limit is not enforced. There are two mailboxes in the lot for customers to drop off outgoing mail while driving through. Tab Bonidy lives in a rural area and drives several miles from his home to the Avon Post Office to pick up mail from his free PO box in the open area of the building.

Click to expand...

Next, Defendants point out that the Fifth Circuit upheld the precise regulation at issue here, after concluding that a USPS employee parking lot qualified as a sensitive place because “the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks”; in other words, “as a place of regular government business.” United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. App’x 874, 875 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). This case is different. In terms of postal business being conducted in the parking lot, Defendants have offered evidence that there are mailboxes in the lot that patrons may use to drop off mail while driving through. But lone mail receptacles used by an undetermined number of transient patrons is easily distinguishable from the lot at issue in Dorosan, which was regularly used by Postal Service employees for processing high volumes of mail via USPS mail trucks. See Dorosan, 350 Fed. App’x at 875. In addition, there are no restrictions on access to the Avon Post Office parking lot beyond a sign posted at the front of the lot limiting parking to 30 minutes, which is not meaningfully enforced. As shown by the aerial photographs in the record, there is little to distinguish the USPS parking lot from other public parking lots in the near vicinity. By contrast, Dorosan involved a USPS employee parking lot that was enclosed by a gate, with a sign on both entrances warning that vehicles entering the lot were subject to search. United Case 1:10-cv-02408-RPM Document 44 Filed 07/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 117 States v. Dorosan , No. 08-042, 2008 WL 2622996, at *1 (E.D. La. June 30, 2008) (Knowles, M.J.). Therefore, Dorosan ’s reasoning and facts are not helpful to Defendants’ position. Considering other indicia of sensitive places, an official, core government function is not performed in the Avon Post Office parking lot; rather, except for the presence of a few mailboxes, the lot merely facilitates the government function taking place inside by giving patrons a place to park. The government business done in the parking lot is thus not of the “same extent or nature as that done in schools, post offices, and courthouses.” Doe v. Wilmington Housing Auth., 880 F. Supp. 2d 513, 532 (D. Del. 2012) (applying reasoning to common areas of public housing). Moreover, Defendants have offered no evidence that a substantial number of people congregate or are present in the parking lot. Cf. Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting parking lots of public buildings “[seem] odd as a ‘sensitive place,’” because they are not “places where high numbers of people might congregate”), vacated on other grounds by 611 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2010). And while patrons may reasonably expect that the Postal Service will take measures to keep the parking lot safe, that expectation is less compelling than the expectation of safety inside the building, where the USPS does business and exercises greater control.

Click to expand...

When it comes to the building itself, a blanket firearms restriction applied to a law-abiding individual like Mr. Bonidy is sufficiently tailored, because the building is sensitive, and the presence of an individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm.

Click to expand...

This ruling allows this particular citizen to keep his gun in his car at this particular Post Office. That is all:

Click to expand...

mikeyb said:

If applicable to one citizen, it has to be applied to all: All men are created equal.

Click to expand...

Bill Starks said:

Both of these things are stated quite clearly in federal law, but be forewarned: they may not mean what you think they mean. Let's start with the "notice" law. Word for word, it states:

Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
​

It clearly says "posted conspicuously at each public entrance." Those of you who have ever been in a post office, however, will recall that the sign is is usually not at the entrance, but somewhere inside the building on a bulletin board.
In a recent federal court case from Maine, a man was convicted of carrying a black powder pistol into the lobby of a federal building. He defended himself by arguing that the signs were on the far side of the lobby and not "at each public entrance," and, therefore, he should not be convicted unless he walked past the metal detectors and signs. The court disagreed, holding that the man had notice.
The sign law does not apply if "such person had actual notice of subsection (a)." Subsection (a) is simply the part of the law that says it is illegal to carry a weapon into a federal facility. Bloggers commenting on the notice aspect of the federal law never mention this portion of the law, but it is at the end of the quote posted above. Therefore, once a park ranger tells you your weapon is illegal inside the building, you have your actual notice regardless of the lack of a sign at the entrance.

Click to expand...

Bill Starks said:

The simple answer is NO....
As to the exception in 930(d)(3) for "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes," please be aware that there is no federal case discussing the meaning of this specific exception to the law. While some claim it means that a person lawfully carrying a holstered handgun for self defense in a National Park should be able to carry it into the visitor's center, since self defense is "a lawful purpose," the people making such claims are not federal judges. The plain truth is that this provision has never been tested in federal court. The downside of being the first test case is that failure carries the potential penalty of federal prison. Remember that the federal judges who will determine such cases work in federal buildings, and their viewpoint may be colored by their particular circumstance.

Click to expand...