Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Post Office

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum13/13592.html

    Anyone have a more legal opinion on if it is legal to OC or even CC at the post office.



  2. #2
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I am working with some folks from Ohio & Oregon on this very issue. I have a very good friend that is a federal lawyer and we are discussing the the legal issue of carrying in a post office. There are 3 different laws at the present time and in IMHO the writers of the laws were on crack when they put them together.
    Two of the laws allows for carry however the third law can still fine you, jail you and strip you of your rights. I'll post more on this when I have it.

    Also look see my post on: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/15400.html

    Are far as your post, if the post office is in a drug store, supermarket, etc. they are contracted and carry is ok. I was just in Ralph's Thriftway (grocery) in Oly on Saturday and I carried.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    I am working with some folks from Ohio & Oregon on this very issue. I have a very good friend that is a federal lawyer and we are discussing the the legal issue of carrying in a post office. There are 3 different laws at the present time and in IMHO the writers of the laws were on crack when they put them together.
    Two of the laws allows for carry however the third law can still fine you, jail you and strip you of your rights. I'll post more on this when I have it.

    Also look see my post on: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/15400.html

    Are far as your post, if the post office is in a drug store, supermarket, etc. they are contracted and carry is ok. I was just in Ralph's Thriftway (grocery) in Oly on Saturday and I carried.
    M1Gunr,

    Thanks and keep us posted here as I do often stop by the snail mail drop off, and from what I have read even that could become a problem. Sometimes going in.

    Just trying to follow the rules...even if they don't all make sense

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    If I know I am going to the post office I usually do CC... Despite that still can be trouble.

    If OC and stopping by the post office I just lock it up in the car for a few minutes.

    Would be nice not to have to do either of those two though.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    The post office is one of those places I think crap could hit the fan. Not only that but I used to have a P.O. and had to check it at night. So this was a hot zone for me. Now it is just an every once in awhile place that I go.

  6. #6
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    Two of the laws allows for carry however the third law can still fine you, jail you and strip you of your rights. I'll post more on this when I have it.
    Which means: we either lobby our (federal) reps to fix the laws to be consistent (hopefully in our favor), or somebody with stones volunteers to be a test case so that the conflict is clarified judicially.

    Stones, anybody?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Those would have to be some pretty big stones... Its like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After awhile youre gonna find out that the pig likes it.

  8. #8
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    The confusing part. section 930 says for lawful purposes. When we look at Title18, U.S. Code, Sections 921-929, Chapter 44. Firearms
    SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to
    provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their
    fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to
    place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on
    law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or
    use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target
    shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this
    title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use
    of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the
    imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other
    than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions
    of this title].

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:
    [size=§ 410. Application of other laws Release date: 2003-06-24 (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service. (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service: (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable; (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;][size=]
    The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "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." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.
    First, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

    We have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that a person would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.

    My federal friend is talking with some friends over at the FBI to see if they can help with this mess.



  9. #9
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    I don't think it takes stones to do this... unless you mean stones in the skull.

    Look what they did to that guy with the malfunctioning firearm that fired more than one shot at a range. When the ammo they used didn't produce the malfunction, they sent it back and told them to use different ammunition and then got it to malfunction and fire more than once per trigger pull. THEN, they motioned for and got a motion to suppress the data from that first test.

    Justice in this country is blind, but only because the government took it into a back alley and stabbed its eyes out.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    +1

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Metal_Monkey wrote:
    So is it illegal to carry in a post office?? I never seen it posted and I carried in the one off of airport road and never had a problem.
    If it is a real Post Office and not a leased location in a store, then yes it is illegal and it will posted inside. It is never posted outside as that would make sense. First you have to violate the law to find the stupid, Constitution violatingsign

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Bear,

    the Evergreen Station Post Office just off of 38th St on Pine is posted on the outside of the building in several locations. they just did that about a year ago though.

    Bobby

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    Bear,

    the Evergreen Station Post Office just off of 38th St on Pine is posted on the outside of the building in several locations. they just did that about a year ago though.

    Bobby
    Our new Post Office is 3 years old, The old ones was built in the 1920sand the signs are inside. I've told them at least 5 time and they just don't bother to change it. Have been tempted to carry inside and if they bust me, claim entrapment.

  14. #14
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I fired off my letters & email today to the US Attorney's Office in both Tacoma and Seattle for answers. Specifically, I requested the following questions to be addressed:

    Is self-defense considered "other lawful purpose" under 18 USC §930(d)(3)?

    Is the public access area of a postal facility considered a federal facility?

    Would a person exempted under 18 USC §930(d)(3) still be subject to prosecution under 39 CFR §232.1(l)? If so, is the exemption recognized in 18 USC §930(d)(3) rendered inoperable under any other provisions of federal code?

    39 CFR §232.1(l) does not specify buildings but "postal property". Does this prohibit the possession of firearms within the approach, collection or parking areas accessible to the public located outside of the buildings?

    Under 39 CFR §232.1(l) the only exemption is "except for official purposes". What constitutes "official purposes"? Is the transaction of normal business in the public area of such facility an "official purpose"? If not, would a person licensed or authorized to carry firearms in the course of their business or duties be subject to prosecution if armed while conducting normal business in the public area of such facility if the transaction is not related to their business or duties?




  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    By sending it to both you will probably get two different answers...lol

  16. #16
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Take the best answers and combine them......:celebrate

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I would actually be suprised if you got an answer other than please consult with an attorney.
    "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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    Ok, here's my take on this.

    39 USC 410 (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service: (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States.

    This in my opinion does not mean that 18 USC 930 doesn't apply. Because a post office is a federal office on federal property, right? 18 USC 930 (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. (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    Nowhere in 18 USC 930 does it say that the post office is excluded, just federal courts.

    So, is the post office a federal facility? Yes, it falls under federal jurisdiction. There are other areas of 18 USC that don't talk about federal facilities or the post office, they don't apply. But I believe 18 USC 930 does, because the post office is a federal facility. Otherwise it's a private facility or a state facility and then isn't covered by any federal law, including 39 CFR, which is a federal regulation.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    Ok, here's my take on this.

    39 USC 410 (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service: (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States.

    This in my opinion does not mean that 18 USC 930 doesn't apply. Because a post office is a federal office on federal property, right? 18 USC 930 (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. (d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

    Nowhere in 18 USC 930 does it say that the post office is excluded, just federal courts.

    So, is the post office a federal facility? Yes, it falls under federal jurisdiction. There are other areas of 18 USC that don't talk about federal facilities or the post office, they don't apply. But I believe 18 USC 930 does, because the post office is a federal facility. Otherwise it's a private facility or a state facility and then isn't covered by any federal law, including 39 CFR, which is a federal regulation.
    The Postal Service has it's own set f regs and is not covered under Title 18.

    39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:
    [size=§ 410. Application of other laws Release date: 2003-06-24 (a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service. (b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service: (1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable; (2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;][size=]
    The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "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." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.
    First, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

    We have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact. If an expansive reading is given to 39 CFR 232.1 and it is considered a FEDERAL LAW, and/or there is a federal law that makes it a crime to violate a provision of the CFR, then carrying at a post office would be prohibited by 2923.126(B)(10), meaning that a person would be committing a felony by carrying at the post office.


Posting Permissions

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