• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

First OC experience in Des Moines/ Seatac

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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.
 

vote_no

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
97
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
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.
 

just_a_car

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
2,558
Location
Auburn, Washington, USA
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
 

Euromutt

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
151
Location
Lacey, Washington, USA
imported post

just_a_car wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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.
IANAL and all that, but I do have some talent for parsing legalese. Bear in mind that the statute talks about (paraphrased) "carrying (or storing) firearms for official purposes," not "carrying while on official business."

Now, the way I read this (and before anyone flames me, I'm not saying it's morally right, I'm saying it's how I think the USPS would argue), if you go in to mail a parcel, no matter how persuasive a case you make that that is "official business" on postal property, you are not carrying your sidearm in furtherance of mailing said parcel, and therefore you are not "carrying for official purposes" as far as the CFR is concerned.
 

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Dave Workman wrote:
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.
If we agree that the Post Office regulations supercede the Federal regulations for the purposes of Post Office carry, then the PO regulations state $50/30 days.

A violation of the Federal Facility regulation states 2 years but we also have the option of being allowed to legally carry for lawful purposes.

I think we definitely need a ruling from some federal official on what constitutes official business but Iwould request it without reference to the Post Office, then a second request as to whether the Federal Facility regulation supercedes or overrides the PO regulation. Otherwise you might get lots of CYA doublespeak if they realize what you are trying to find out.
 

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
imported post

heresolong wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
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.
If we agree that the Post Office regulations supercede the Federal regulations for the purposes of Post Office carry, then the PO regulations state $50/30 days.

A violation of the Federal Facility regulation states 2 years but we also have the option of being allowed to legally carry for lawful purposes.

I think we definitely need a ruling from some federal official on what constitutes official business but Iwould request it without reference to the Post Office, then a second request as to whether the Federal Facility regulation supercedes or overrides the PO regulation. Otherwise you might get lots of CYA doublespeak if they realize what you are trying to find out.

Hi, you might want to check out USA V MURRAY

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/01-1065-01A.pdf

XD
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

XD45PlusP wrote:
heresolong wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
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.
If we agree that the Post Office regulations supercede the Federal regulations for the purposes of Post Office carry, then the PO regulations state $50/30 days.

A violation of the Federal Facility regulation states 2 years but we also have the option of being allowed to legally carry for lawful purposes.

I think we definitely need a ruling from some federal official on what constitutes official business but Iwould request it without reference to the Post Office, then a second request as to whether the Federal Facility regulation supercedes or overrides the PO regulation. Otherwise you might get lots of CYA doublespeak if they realize what you are trying to find out.

Hi, you might want to check out USA V MURRAY

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/01-1065-01A.pdf

XD
I don;t think the post office comes under federal facility ban - they have their onw reg with a lawful purpose exception - is there a case construing the reach of the lawful purpose exception??
 
Top