• 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.

Post Office

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
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.
 

Triple Tap

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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 :banghead:
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
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.
 

Triple Tap

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

John Hardin

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
683
Location
Snohomish, Washington, USA
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? :)
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
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.
 

just_a_car

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

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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
 

Bobarino

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
295
Location
Puyallup, Washington, USA
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
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bill Starks

State Researcher
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
4,304
Location
Nortonville, KY, USA
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?
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
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.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top