paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
I recently sent the email below to Congressman Forbes.
I got a phone call back from one of Congressman Forbes' staffers today. Unfortunately I was tied up with a patient and couldn't answer the phone. By the time I checked the message, it was too late to call back, so I will return the call Monday.
The gist of the message:
He wants to talk to me about the issue so they can "get to the bottom of these conflicting regulations."
Sounds encouraging. Randy Forbes is a solid pro 2A guy.
The original email:
Congressman Forbes,
I have a question about Federal law and a glaring inconsistency that has been greatly debated among gun owners, and I hope that you can provide some assistance.
Many Post Offices have signs barring the possession of weapons, and they cite various Federal Codes. As a lawful citizen with a valid Concealed Handgun Permit, may I legally carry my handgun into a United States Post Office? Is the permitted carrying of a handgun considered a lawful activity (purpose)?
I will list the relevant Code below.
18 USC Section 930 (a) says:
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.
18 USA Section 930 (d) says:
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.
However:
18 USC 930 does not apply to the post office.
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:
§ 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;
So the only provision that I could be charged under is 39 CFR 232.1
(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.
Which leads to a better question: If I go to the Post Office in order to take mail a package or buy stamps, is that an official purpose? Official purpose is not defined.
While there are alternatives to the Post Office, I am sure that very few citizens could go their whole lives without needing to go there at some point. I can not think of any good reason why weapons should be banned, such as is necessary in a Federal Courthouse. Going to the Post Office is not much different than going to Wal Mart!
Please also reference the following:
US v. Dorosan:
The Volokh Conspiracy - Another Early Post-<i>Heller</i> Second Amendment Case:
Dorosan was a Postal employee found to be in possession of a firearm in the employee parking lot, and was found guilty of the CFR 232 cite. Note I am not asking you fight a Judge's ruling. What I would like is a law that prohibits the Post Office from issuing a blanket prohibition, similar to the recent reversal of the National Park rule, that makes the parks mirror state law. Oddly enough, VA law allows rural postal carriers to carry a concealed handgun without a permit!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I recently sent the email below to Congressman Forbes.
I got a phone call back from one of Congressman Forbes' staffers today. Unfortunately I was tied up with a patient and couldn't answer the phone. By the time I checked the message, it was too late to call back, so I will return the call Monday.
The gist of the message:
He wants to talk to me about the issue so they can "get to the bottom of these conflicting regulations."
Sounds encouraging. Randy Forbes is a solid pro 2A guy.
The original email:
Congressman Forbes,
I have a question about Federal law and a glaring inconsistency that has been greatly debated among gun owners, and I hope that you can provide some assistance.
Many Post Offices have signs barring the possession of weapons, and they cite various Federal Codes. As a lawful citizen with a valid Concealed Handgun Permit, may I legally carry my handgun into a United States Post Office? Is the permitted carrying of a handgun considered a lawful activity (purpose)?
I will list the relevant Code below.
18 USC Section 930 (a) says:
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.
18 USA Section 930 (d) says:
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.
However:
18 USC 930 does not apply to the post office.
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:
§ 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;
So the only provision that I could be charged under is 39 CFR 232.1
(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.
Which leads to a better question: If I go to the Post Office in order to take mail a package or buy stamps, is that an official purpose? Official purpose is not defined.
While there are alternatives to the Post Office, I am sure that very few citizens could go their whole lives without needing to go there at some point. I can not think of any good reason why weapons should be banned, such as is necessary in a Federal Courthouse. Going to the Post Office is not much different than going to Wal Mart!
Please also reference the following:
US v. Dorosan:
The Volokh Conspiracy - Another Early Post-<i>Heller</i> Second Amendment Case:
Dorosan was a Postal employee found to be in possession of a firearm in the employee parking lot, and was found guilty of the CFR 232 cite. Note I am not asking you fight a Judge's ruling. What I would like is a law that prohibits the Post Office from issuing a blanket prohibition, similar to the recent reversal of the National Park rule, that makes the parks mirror state law. Oddly enough, VA law allows rural postal carriers to carry a concealed handgun without a permit!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
