Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Post Heller - Can we carry in Post Offices?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    I know the part of the ruling about government buildings, but the post office "rule" grants exception for hunting or other lawful purpose IIRC. Since Heller expressly acknowledges the pre-existing right to a self defence purpose for the handgun, is there now any operative part of the CFR that prohibits open carry in a post office?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Don't count on it.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    As many before have said, "I wouldn't want to be the test case."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    I really don't believe Heller is the stepping stone that we are looking for, IMHO. while it does clarify the individual rights aspect of 2A, it essentially neuters the rest of it.

    let me explain. while we are quick to see this and make our own conclusions about it, the Heller opinion stated quite clearly that:

    • the ruling could not be used against any longstanding gun control measure

    Before, and even after the case, many hoped that we could use this landmark case as a starting point towards repealing acts like the NFA, GCA, and FOPA laws. The justices obvioulsy had this in mind and were quick to point out thatlong standing laws such as those wouldn't be affected by Heller

    • Licensing, and even registration is perfectly acceptable under the decision

    In the opinion, Scalia pointed out that he felt that licensing and registration were perfectly acceptable. what this does is leave large loopholes open which will allow lawmakers to register our guns to death, just as they did with NFA weapons. using a broad interpetation of teh Heller opinion, it is perfectly concievable that one day acquiring standard handguns and long guns could require s much ime money and paperwork as an NFA weapon, and under Heller, it would be a perfectly acceptable infringement.

    • you can't ban an entire class of weapons, but there isn't anything that will specify what those classes are.

    Shortly after the ruling, D.Cs mayor stated that while they had to allow "handguns", they were still going to ban automatic weapons, semi automatic weapons and anything else they pleased. they just can't ban "handguns". likewise, m,any folks believe that Heller will likely prohibit a new assault weapons ban, but that really isn't the case. What if "assault weapon" isn't considered to be a "class" of firearm? an AR-15 may be classified as an "assault weapon", but it is also a rifle. the proponents of such a ban would just argue that they aren't overstepping Heller, because they aren't banning ALL RIFLES ( their interpetation ofthe "class" of weapon, ) they are just banning "assault rifles", which they would see as a sub class.

    • the Second Ammendment isn't incorporated

    while the NRA is already making plans to file suit against Chicago, Baltimore, etc. those lawsuits won't be effective, because Heller doesn't apply to them. Scalia himself stated that since the 2nd isn't incorporated, it gives no protection from state or city infringements. he only reason D.C. is affected is due to it's special nature. D.C. is a direct district of teh federal government, and not subservient to any state. That is the only reason why D.C. is affected.

    While most of us see Heller as a victory, which it is, it is nothing more than a start. Heller, by itself, won't change anything. while it has the potential to be a catalyst for change, there are many long battles ahead before we will see any noticeable change in the SOP anywhere in teh US

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't count it all out already. I agreeon the class of weapons andthey made no distinction other thansaying handguns is a class, in my opinion.They included all handguns rather than revolvers, pistols etc. This leaves the door open to say rifles are not banned but automatics are since it may be a sub-class or something on that order.

    It will surprise me greatly if the incorporated statements are interpreted to only mean DC and if they had intended it that way I think they would have said so in different words.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    The USPS isn't a goverment agency, it's a public corporation.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    AnaxImperator wrote:
    The USPS isn't a goverment agency, it's a public corporation.
    A public corporation? Kinda. A public corporation that is created by federal mandate (Title 39, Section 101.1 of the USC), pays no federal tax, around 100$ million dollars year of tax payer money to the "Postal Service Fund", a government granted monopoly on delivering first class mail, has a majority of its board members appointed by the president...I could go on.

    It may not be strictly a government agency, but it certainly isn't a normal public corporation at all.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I wouldn't count it all out already.

    while I'm not counting it all out, i have seen enough to know how the antis think. Hell, it has taken us over 200 years to get teh court to agree that " the right of the people shall not be infringed" means the people. Anything which leaves any type of loophole open is going to be exploited to their fullest advantage. and Heller definitely leaves a lot of loopholes...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Western, Washington, USA
    Posts
    86

    Post imported post

    Heller also specifically only applies in the home, not outside of your home. This was intentional, pick a small wedge find the one that is most likely to pass because if you dont get this one you'll never get any of the rest to work. They intentionally chose defense inside the home as this was the most likely to get a win

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    FE427TP wrote:
    Heller also specifically only applies in the home, not outside of your home. This was intentional, pick a small wedge find the one that is most likely to pass because if you dont get this one you'll never get any of the rest to work. They intentionally chose defense inside the home as this was the most likely to get a win
    Very true.

    But even though the language was narrow, that SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd Amendment as being a right of the people, and not just a militia, makes up for the decision being focused on handguns for home-defense.

    The Supreme Court's definition has finally secured our RTKBA nationwide. The future will now be one of arguing regulation, rather than semantics. Ammunition & "assault-weapon" bans, anyone???

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    AnaxImperator wrote:
    The Supreme Court's definition has finally secured our RTKBA nationwide.

    our right to keep and bear arms has been ours since before the US was ever concieved. the SC did nothing more than acknowledge it ( albeit on a very small scale), same as teh Constitution did. even if SCOTUS had ruled teh oter way, we would still have the right.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    unreconstructed1 wrote:
    our right to keep and bear arms has been ours since before the US was ever concieved. the SC did nothing more than acknowledge it ( albeit on a very small scale), same as teh Constitution did. even if SCOTUS had ruled teh oter way, we would still have the right.
    I agree, in that the 2nd Amendment didn't grant us the RTKBA, only that it is an intrinsic human right, and it shall not be infringed.

    But there was the bearing arms onlyfor a militia argument, and as long as that wasn't cleared up the gun-control activists would continue to use it as an attack onwhether it meant there is anindividual right. The dissenting SCOTUS justices' main point was almost wholly that the RTKBA referred to militia service.

    The SCOTUS ruling removed that argument from the gun-grabber's arsenal.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    I know the part of the ruling about government buildings, but the post office "rule" grants exception for hunting or other lawful purpose IIRC. Since Heller expressly acknowledges the pre-existing right to a self defence purpose for the handgun, is there now any operative part of the CFR that prohibits open carry in a post office?
    Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Section 232.1(l) 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.

    I don't see anything in Title 39 that exempts for hunting of other "lawful purposes".

    The term used is "official purposes" and in this context it means, Police, FBI, ATF, Postal Inspector, or any other person who as part of their "official" duties must carry a firearm.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    I know the part of the ruling about government buildings, but the post office "rule" grants exception for hunting or other lawful purpose IIRC. Since Heller expressly acknowledges the pre-existing right to a self defence purpose for the handgun, is there now any operative part of the CFR that prohibits open carry in a post office?
    Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Section 232.1(l) 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.

    I don't see anything in Title 39 that exempts for hunting of other "lawful purposes".

    The term used is "official purposes" and in this context it means, Police, FBI, ATF, Postal Inspector, or any other person who as part of their "official" duties must carry a firearm.
    CFR is the method of establishing Rules required to implement USC. The CFR can never legitimately exceed the authority established by the USC.

    In this case, 18 USC 936 prohibits "weapons" in "federal facilities", which is defined as buildings or portions of buildings (not "property") where federal employees regularly work.

    Any CFR written to implement this law cannot exceed the authority given in the Code itself.

    Make no mistake, federal agencies regularly exceed statutory authority when they write their Rules (which have the weight of law). Federal magistrates regularly uphold those Rules. I'm only talking "should be" here.


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    nowhere, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    I know the part of the ruling about government buildings, but the post office "rule" grants exception for hunting or other lawful purpose IIRC. Since Heller expressly acknowledges the pre-existing right to a self defence purpose for the handgun, is there now any operative part of the CFR that prohibits open carry in a post office?
    Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39, Section 232.1(l) 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.

    I don't see anything in Title 39 that exempts for hunting of other "lawful purposes".

    The term used is "official purposes" and in this context it means, Police, FBI, ATF, Postal Inspector, or any other person who as part of their "official" duties must carry a firearm.
    Doesn't "official purposes"cover carrying firearms onto postal-service property that is properlypackaged & labelledfor shipping to an FFL?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    18 USC Sec. 930
    01/26/98


    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS


    HEADING

    Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
    STATUTE

    (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 or attempts to kill 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, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.
    (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.

    (e)(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

    (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
    (g) As used in this section:

    (1) The term ''Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

    (2) The term ''dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.

    (3) The term ''Federal court facility'' means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
    (h) 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.

    TITLE 39--POSTAL SERVICE

    CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

    PART 232--CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents

    Sec. 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under
    the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies,
    and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall
    be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.

    (l) 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.


    (p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules
    and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are
    imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate
    in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such
    rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region
    involved.
    (2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and
    regulations in this section while on property under the charge and
    control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or
    imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in
    these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other
    Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations
    applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
    (q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security
    force shall exercise the powers of special policemen provided by 40
    U.S.C. 318 and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in
    this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property.
    (2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40
    U.S.C. 318b and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his
    designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement
    agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a
    manner that will protect Postal Service property.
    (3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal
    Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal
    Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

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