• 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.

Watch the PO

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
imported post

While I was at the Nampa PO today, I asked about how they thought the firearms ban read. The response, from a Supervisory level employee was absolutely no open carry and firearms were not permitted PERIOD. The desk clerk chimed in that this included the PO parking lot as well and hunters "know" to park out on the street. This is inline with that ruling a week or so ago about the employee who was prosecuted for possession in his car on the lot.Park on the street or risk trouble.

I also posted a question about how this affects prosecution...

Title 18 section 930.h states...

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

That's okay. It's a great idea for the post office to deter possible customers when they're losing money the way they are. If I can't put it in a mailbox, I'm going with UPS.
 

Eric.

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
45
Location
Boise, , USA
imported post

Thanks for the warning about the parking lot. Just goes to show you there is no bound to government screwing up business.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

The Post Office is not covered by this section. They are covered by a specific section of Federal Code dealing with the Post Office. I am typing this from a I-touch, but will try to cite when I get home.

ecocks wrote:
While I was at the Nampa PO today, I asked about how they thought the firearms ban read. The response, from a Supervisory level employee was absolutely no open carry and firearms were not permitted PERIOD. The desk clerk chimed in that this included the PO parking lot as well and hunters "know" to park out on the street. This is inline with that ruling a week or so ago about the employee who was prosecuted for possession in his car on the lot. Park on the street or risk trouble.

I also posted a question about how this affects prosecution...

Title 18 section 930.h states...

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

I recall reading something where Mike refuted that the other day. I'll edit and link that in momentarily. I believe the post office is covered based on his arguments.

Edit: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/33021-1.html

The edit is the link to a 3 page discussion on it if it's legal or not. Some reasonably detailed discussion of the applicable law in that thread.
 

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
imported post

Yeah, apparently, you cannot be charged under Title 18 if it isn't posted BUT they can charge you under another law, statute, regulation or code.

How complicated can they make this?

We need a new Constitutional Amendment which prohibits lawyers from serving in Congress or Government office....sigh.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Wouldn't help. The lawmakers don't actually read the laws they propose or vote on anyway. Google it if you doubt me, I remember watching video of a senator laughing when he was asked about it, said he didn't have the time.
 

Eric.

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
45
Location
Boise, , USA
imported post

I sometimes wonder how much design there is to the sheer mass of laws with little enforcement or punishment for offenders. As if some desire that everyone be guilty, and thus beholden to the gov., all while permitting the truly guilty to roam free.
 
Top