Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: First OC experience in Des Moines/ Seatac

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    With my first day off from work I decided today would be the day. I was a little concerned about what situation I might get into while OC but said what the hell. First stop was the post office in Des Moines. There were a few people there but no comments or even a second glance. Next stop was subway ( Love my spicy italian ). It was packed in there and I waited in line for about 20 minutes because the lady in front of me ordered about eight sandwiches. With a familybehind me with a could kids I just knew I was going to hear something. Not a word and I was in there for about 30 minutes. Next stop was the 7-11 in seatac but by now I had no worries and became one with my Taurus. After a few more stops to safeway and the cleaners and looking at some apartments today was a great first day, no second looks and I don't think anyone really paid attention to me. Maybe my looks are fading!? Naw, thats not it, it must be my confident presence

  2. #2
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    DO NOT OC IN THE POST OFFICE!!!... It may be illegal!

    Check out this old thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/7562.html

    It says you can't carry openly or concealed unless for "official business", but that's never defined. Don't risk it! It's not worth losing your gun rights.

    Other than that... glad to hear you had a good OC day.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    It says you can't carry openly or concealed unless for "official business", but that's never defined. Don't risk it! It's not worth losing your gun rights.
    Why would you lose your gun rights? Its a $50 and/or 30 days offense. That sounds like a misdemeanor and I was under the impression that you don't lose gun rights for misdemeanors, only felonies.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    So domestic violence is a misdemeanor and you lose your gun rights for that. It's just not worth the trouble. We are talkin' the feds here and they are not known for playing fair. LEAVE YOUR GUN IN THE CAR WHEN GOING TO THE POST OFFICE.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Well done enlightened, and welcome aboard.

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    I try to stay away from the Post Office ----Period. If I need to send anything I use one of the Mail Box Services. Post Office just causes my blood pressure to rise.

    Chances are the clerk was so dumb he/she thoughtenlightened was a LEO.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Welcome Enlightened! And like everyone else says, stay out of the blasted PO!

  8. #8
    Regular Member ATCer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Enlightened,

    Welcome to the forums! Lots of good stuff in here... good people too!

    With regards to carrying into a post office, I would say that you would be completly legal... Here is what Doug Huffman posted in the linked thread

    USC Title 18

    § 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous
    weapons in Federal facilities
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever
    knowingly possesses or causes to be present
    a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal
    facility (other than a Federal court facility),
    or attempts to do so, shall be fined under
    this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or
    both.
    (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or
    other dangerous weapon be used in the commission
    of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes
    to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon
    in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall
    be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
    than 5 years, or both.
    (c) A person who kills any person in the course
    of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the
    course of an attack on a Federal facility involving
    the use of a firearm or other dangerous
    weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an
    act, shall be punished as provided in sections
    1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
    (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
    (1) the lawful performance of official duties
    by an officer, agent, or employee of the United
    States, a State, or a political subdivision
    thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in
    or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
    or prosecution of any violation of
    law;
    (2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous
    weapon by a Federal official or a member
    of the Armed Forces if such possession is
    authorized by law; or
    (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other
    dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident
    to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever
    knowingly possesses or causes to be present
    a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts
    to do so, shall be fined under this title,
    imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct
    which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
    (d).

    Paragraph 930-(d)-(3) Spicifically states that it does not apply to those carrying for any lawful purpose other than hunting. I believe that the US Code and the Constitution would be able to back you up. But then again, I could be completly wrong... Just my $.02

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Thank you everyone, I will just keep it in the car in the future. Wouldn't want to get it taken away and get in trouble.

  10. #10
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    ATCer:

    There's some question about that. I thought the same way you do, but someone pointed out to me that post offices have their own special segment of USC that does prohibit firearms more tightly than 18USC.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    The postal code prohibiting firearms is in the CFR's section 232.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member ATCer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Hmm... good to know. Thanks for the heads up!

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    The postal code prohibiting firearms is in the CFR's section 232.
    To narrow that search down, Title 39, Part 232. Section l (lower L) is on page 43 (or page 3 of the PDF) covering this topic.

  14. #14
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    I was not referring to the CFR - Federal Regulations cannot nullify Federal Law. A different section of USC (United States Code, Federal Law) specifically relevant to post offices was brought to my attention when we were discussing this subject earlier over on NWCDL (if I recall correctly).

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    I was not referring to the CFR - Federal Regulations cannot nullify Federal Law. A different section of USC (United States Code, Federal Law) specifically relevant to post offices was brought to my attention when we were discussing this subject earlier over on NWCDL (if I recall correctly).
    Couldn't find it over there but I recall a discusiion about this and I think I remember the USC stating federal property. The CFR specifically states Postal Property.

    I could be wrong on this though.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    (l) Weapons and explosives. Notwith-
    standing 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.



    Seems to me that the other reg would supercede this...being that it says 'Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation', if another rule/law permits it, than it's legit.

    Standard IANAL disclaimer.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  17. #17
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    (l) Weapons and explosives. Notwith-
    standing 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.



    Seems to me that the other reg would supercede this...being that it says 'Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation', if another rule/law permits it, than it's legit.

    Standard IANAL disclaimer.
    Quite the opposite. "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of" in this case... e.g., even if other laws, rules or regulations permit it, it is not permitted.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notwithstanding
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  18. #18
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    (l) Weapons and explosives. Notwith-
    standing 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.



    Seems to me that the other reg would supercede this...being that it says 'Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation', if another rule/law permits it, than it's legit.

    Standard IANAL disclaimer.
    Quite the opposite. "Notwithstanding" means "in spite of" in this case... e.g., even if other laws, rules or regulations permit it, it is not permitted.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notwithstanding
    oh monkey balls....

    So define 'official purposes' ? Is a business transaction an 'official purpose' ?
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  19. #19
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    oh monkey balls....

    So define 'official purposes' ? Is a business transaction an 'official purpose' ?
    ...and therein lies our predicament and why we've discussed it to death. There is no official definition given for "official purpose".

    That would actually be worth an email to the USPS to get it defined or even to the US AG office. If they define is as "you must be a federal official", then we're hosed... but if it's "utilizing the USPS services in any form", we'll have a document that states we can OPEN CARRY at the USPS. I would love to have something like that.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Heresolong, I'm not sure where you're getting the "$50 fine and 30-day suspension" but 930(d)(3) calls for a fine and imprisonment for up to 2 years. That's a felony.

    To my knowledge, there is nocourt precedent defining "other lawful purposes."



    It is always best to not be a test case.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    Does "on postal property" also mean the parking lot? Should I be parking out on the road when I go to get the mail from my PO Box? Good grief.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    The way I read it it does mean the parking lot if it is exclusively used for the post office.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  23. #23
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Postal property is whereever their property line is... which is likely the edge of the sidewalk. So, you can walk on the sidewalk passed the post office, but you can't park there or step on their grass if you're carrying.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    just_a_car wrote:
    Postal property is whereever their property line is... which is likely the edge of the sidewalk. So, you can walk on the sidewalk passed the post office, but you can't park there or step on their grass if you're carrying.
    What a bizarre concept.

  25. #25
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    vote_no wrote:
    just_a_car wrote:
    Postal property is whereever their property line is... which is likely the edge of the sidewalk. So, you can walk on the sidewalk passed the post office, but you can't park there or step on their grass if you're carrying.
    What a bizarre concept.
    Well, you see, the legislature (who made those rules) realized that stepping onto Post Office property had adverse affects on the minds of the populus and they did not want such affects to be exacerbated by those people carrying firearms or other weapons. The postal workers are perfect examples of this...

    ...I mean, there's a reason it's called "going postal". :P
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

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
  •