CC or OC in Federal Bldgs

Posted by Eugene Volokh:
More on Guns in Post Office Parking Lots:
[url=http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_06-2008_07_12.shtml#1215626237]http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_06-2008_07_12.shtml#1215626237[/url]


Monday, the magistrate judge in U.S. v. Dorosan, which I blogged about
[1]here, issued a further opinion, including this on the Second
Amendment question (which is whether the federal government could
criminalize the bringing of guns onto post office property, including
leaving them in a car parked in the parking lot):

The Court has considered defense counsel's argument that Dorosan's
vehicle is an extension of his home; however, that result obtains
only when the vehicle is not parked on postal property where access
is restricted. In this case, the restricted employee parking and
loading area where Dorosan parked his vehicle during his shift
bears signs that advise all who enter the gates, as follows:

Vehicles and their contents brought into, while on, or being
removed from restricted nonpublic areas are subject to inspection.
A prominently displayed sign shall advise in advance that vehicles
and their contents are subject to inspection when entering the
restricted nonpublic area, while in the confines of the area, or
when leaving the area. Persons entering these areas who object and
refuse to consent to the inspection of the vehicle, its contents,
or both, may be denied entry; after entering the area without
objection, consent shall be implied. A full search of a person and
any vehicle driven or occupied by the person may accompany an
arrest.

An area, such as the Gretna Post Office's employee parking lot,
which bears warnings the likes of that aforestated can hardly be
analogized to "home sweet home" or an extension of same. By the
same token, privately owned vehicles parked on such "postal
property" cannot be reasonably be considered an extension of home.
The "postal property" at issue more closely approximates one of
those "sensitive places" excepted by the Supreme Court in Heller,
the Court's latest opinion addressing the Second Amendment "right
to bear arms." Certainly a loaded semi-automatic weapon, even if
secured in the locked glove compartment of a privately owned
vehicle, creates an opportunity for violence on such "postal
property" -- i.e., a "sensitive" area where access is restricted
for reasons of facilitating the movement of inbound and outbound
mail entrusted to the USPS.

[Footnote, moved: In Heller, the Supreme Court cautioned that
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons
and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places ...." District of Columbia v. Heller (holding
that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
secures the fundamental right of all Americans to bear arms).]

Eradicating the potential for deadly workplace violence and
ensuring the safety of both Government employees and the public on
"postal property" is exactly the security measure that the
regulation at issue was designed to effect. The regulation is an
adjunct of the Postal Service's policies and more particularly the
"zero tolerance" of workplace violence. Indeed, many of those who
use postal facilities, including postal workers, do so from
necessity, not choice; many members of the public must go to a post
office to conduct their business and personal correspondence,
carrying cash for stamps or money orders. Postal employees must
enter and exit the postal property at issue carrying the U.S. mail.

As previously addressed in this Court's prior opinion, the postal
regulation at issue (39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)) passes Second Amendment
constitutional muster and is reasonable as applied to Dorosan. The
Government has a significant interest in protecting the integrity
of the purposes to which it has dedicated the property
(facilitating postal transactions) and ensuring the security of
postal employees and the public who must: (1) visit postal property
to conduct official and personal business; (2) wait single file in
roped off lines inside of postal facilities; (3) idle in vehicles
single file in "snorkel lanes" 21 on postal property to use "drive
and drop" mail receptacles placed outside of the Post Office
building; and (4) carry cash or other legal tender for stamps,
money orders, passports and other goods and services provided by
the United States Postal Service.

Noting the fact that there were no signs prominently displayed
outside of the Gretna Post Office building publishing the
regulation's prohibition against carrying firearms (§ 232.1(l)) or
animals (§ 232.1(j)) on "postal property," the defendant argued
that the statute was vague, overly broad and unconstitutional as
applied to the defendant. More particularly, defense counsel
suggested that the regulation effectively outlaws conduct including
matriculating the drop box lane in a vehicle with either a firearm
or an animal safely stowed within its confines. The undersigned
Magistrate Judge expresses no opinion whatsoever as to the
constitutionality of regulation's ban on carrying firearms or
animals in public areas without official purpose -- i.e., operating
a vehicle through the "snorkel lane" of the Gretna Post Office
while accompanied by a pet Shih Tzu, other non-seeing eye dog or,
perhaps, armed with a loaded handgun stowed in the glove
compartment. Neither of those issues are before the Court in this
case, which involves the prohibited conduct of carrying and storing
firearms without official purpose in the gated/restricted access
employee parking, loading and unloading area of the subject "postal
property."

References

1. [url=http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_06-2008_07_12.shtml#1215449415]http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_06-2008_07_12.shtml#1215449415[/url]