• 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.

Man's conviction for gun in car on Post Office property upheld

SA-TX

Centurion
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
275
Location
Ellis County, Texas, USA
imported post

Get it straight from the source: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

The states served by this circuit are Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. He was convicted for violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1([font=CenturySchoolbook,Italic]l[/font]). CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations -- the rules promulgated under a statute but not the statute itself.This is precedent, at least for limited purposes (see the footnote on page 1 ofthe opinion).

It appears that he was an employee who had a gun in his vehicle parked on Postal Service property.

The penalty wasn't addressed but it appears that the penalty is a fine of not more than $50 or more than 30 days in jail (!). See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/39cfr232.1.pdf


 

Daddyo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
250
Location
Plymouth, MN, ,
imported post

So the way I read it, if the state in question were to have a law confirming that the car is an extension of one's personal property and the contents therefore not subject to an employer's regulation, and if the car were parked in the public area of the Post Office rather than the mail loading area, he would be ok.

It seems to confirm that the Post Office is in fact a private entity that happens to conduct government business and the areas in which that business is conducted are therefore considered "special".
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

[font=TimesNewRoman,Italic][font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]


[align=left]"47.5.4 Unpublished Opinions Issued on or After January 1, 1996*. Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996*, are not precedent, except under the doctrine of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case (or similarly to show double jeopardy,notice, sanctionable conduct, entitlement to attorney's fees, or the like)."[/align]


[align=left]So the only way this establishes a "precedent" is ina dispute between the United States and the unfortunate defendant in this case.[/align]
[/font][/font]
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

KansasMustang wrote:
Donkey please change the color of that font, can't see a thing you wrote. Not that it isn't leftist BS, just can't see it.
Sorry. Copied the lime color from the 5th Cir. website. Changing now.
 
Top