Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Carry in the post office!

  1. #1
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    i have read about all the reasons that carry to post offices is illegal, but i havent been in there in years.

    soooo i went to mail something special last week and was carefull to park at the bank and lock my star modelo super in my van off post ofice property...

    i looked everywhere out side the place... everywhere inside the lobby...and everywhere inside the custumer service area....

    nowhere did i see any sign saying no guns !!

    does the post office no guns law count if they dont post the signs??
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    i have read about all the reasons that carry to post offices is illegal, but i havent been in there in years.

    soooo i went to mail something special last week and was carefull to park at the bank and lock my star modelo super in my van off post ofice property...

    i looked everywhere out side the place... everywhere inside the lobby...and everywhere inside the custumer service area....

    nowhere did i see any sign saying no guns !!

    does the post office no guns law count if they dont post the signs??
    You are confusing the statutes, the most common mistake when discussing carry in the post office.

    US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chap 44, Section 930 deals with possession of firearms and dangersous weapons in Federal Facilities. This law requires signs to be posted at every entrance to the Federal Facility for someone to be convicted of carrying in a Federal Facility (basically). Most people think that this is the law that makes it illegal to carry in a Post Office, it isn't.

    CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Title 39, Chapter 1, Section 232.1 (l) covers carrying a firearm on postal property. Although this Sectionhas a requirement that the rules be posted, there is no language stating that if it is not posted you can't be convicted.

    (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.[/b]

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Title 39, Chapter 1, Section 232.1 (l) covers carrying a firearm on postal property. Although this Sectionhas a requirement that the rules be posted, there is no language stating that if it is not posted you can't be convicted.

    (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.[/b]
    New question (or perhaps not):

    I am officially using the post office to send official US mail.

    What is the definition of 'for official purposes'?
    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    I tend to avoid places that give crappy service. The Post Office is high on that list. The raise prices without increasing quality of service. They spend more time telling you what they can't/won't do for you, the customer, rather than offering better service. That keeps me from patronizing their facilities so the "gun ban" means nothing to me.

    As for carrying a gun in a post office while going about "lawful activities", this remains a question that will be no doubt resolved only after someone is arrested and has his day in court. That person willinvest a lot of time, money, and many appeals that I expect will end in the Supreme Court. Until someone tests this "ban" the Post Office will ban guns, sign or no sign.

    As for there being a requirement that signs be posted in order for the restriction to be legal, this is only the case where there is an underlying statute or code requiring the same. An example is Texas where they have the 30.06 requirement that a sign be posted or the restriction is not enforceable. Not so In Washington or Fed Facilities.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    PNW, Washington, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Since you allowed to mail a hand gun via the USPS, their laws aren't clear.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Title 39, Chapter 1, Section 232.1 (l) covers carrying a firearm on postal property. Although this Sectionhas a requirement that the rules be posted, there is no language stating that if it is not posted you can't be convicted.

    (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.[/b]
    New question (or perhaps not):

    I am officially using the post office to send official US mail.

    What is the definition of 'for official purposes'?
    Pretty much if you are required to carry a firearm in the capacity of your job, and you are doing that job while on postal property, then you may carry. Some examples: Law Enforcement Officers, Military who are carrying in the execution of their duties, or a Postal Inspector who is required to carry a gun on the job.




  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    jinj wrote:
    Since you allowed to mail a hand gun via the USPS, their laws aren't clear.
    No, you are not allowed to mail a handgun via USPS.

    From the ATF:

    A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Private property owner's can keep us off their property, the Federal government can keepus off Federal property, and the post office can keep us off their property.
    Isn't this the same (flawed) logic that Seattle is using in its parks ban?

    "Federal property" belongs to the people.

  9. #9
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    tai4de2 wrote:
    NavyLT wrote:
    Private property owner's can keep us off their property, the Federal government can keepus off Federal property, and the post office can keep us off their property.
    Isn't this the same (flawed) logic that Seattle is using in its parks ban?

    "Federal property" belongs to the people.
    I wish I could be president and bring this country back to what it should be. Using everyone's ideas to come up with the best solution to our problems. And using common sense instead of $$$ to make laws that are reactive and not attempt to "ban" or stop people from doing things, which has not and will not stop anyone from doing what the law says not to do.

  10. #10
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    Proactive laws that do not work (saying "don't do these things")...

    Laws against speeding
    Laws against running red lights
    Laws against DUI
    Laws against drug possession
    Laws against owning "illegal" automatic weapons
    Laws against texting/calling while driving.


    What should be happening (reactive laws)...

    Laws against speeding AND you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against running red light AND you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against DUI w/o an accident AND or you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against drug possession AND DUI = punishment
    Laws against owning "illegal" automatic weapons AND murder = life in prison/death sentence
    Laws against texting/calling while driving AND you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against murder = life in prison/death sentence

  11. #11
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    swatspyder wrote:
    Proactive laws that do not work (saying "don't do these things")...

    Laws against speeding
    Laws against running red lights
    Laws against DUI
    Laws against drug possession
    Laws against owning "illegal" automatic weapons
    Laws against texting/calling while driving.


    What should be happening (reactive laws)...

    Laws against speeding AND you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against running red light AND you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against DUI w/o an accident AND or you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against drug possession AND DUI = punishment
    Laws against owning "illegal" automatic weapons AND murder = life in prison/death sentence
    Laws against texting/calling while driving AND you get into an accident = punishment
    Laws against murder = life in prison/death sentence
    I must respectfully disagree. I am personally ecstatic that it is illegal to run a red light, accident or not. It is only the fact that it is illegal and that there is a chance of a pretty hefty fine that keep some people from running that red light. If we did as you suggested about running the red light, there would be chaos at intersections. People stopping at green lights for fear of people running red lights, people actually running the red lights.

    Bet if you or your family was killed by that guy who ran 100's of red lights before, in front of the cops, and didn't get stopped because no accident occured - you would probably rethink your position.

    What you are suggesting is complete anarchy - the ability to do whatever one wants without consequence - unless they hurt someone else.

    The huge difference is that we have history and statistics that prove that allowing people to carry guns however they want to and to obtain those gun however they want to, until the point that they commit a criminal assault against someone, actually makes society a safer place.
    I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am saying that it is individual responsibility to know that running a red light can kill people. Making it illegal is a waste of time and it doesn't stop people from running a red light.

    Having a reactive law, stating that if you get into an accident, then you get punishment of some sort is what should be on the books. The same for everything I listed on there.

    "the ability to do whatever one wants without consequence - unless they hurt someone else." - This is EXACTLY what I am saying should be done. It is like saying that carrying a firearm should be considered illegal because it can be pulled out and you can shoot someone, or an accident could occur firing a round and killing someone. Just because you run red lights, does not mean that you are going to kill someone. Just the same as if you carry a gun around, it does not mean you are going to kill someone. But it could happen.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    gogodawgs wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, Title 39, Chapter 1, Section 232.1 (l) covers carrying a firearm on postal property. Although this Sectionhas a requirement that the rules be posted, there is no language stating that if it is not posted you can't be convicted.

    (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.[/b]
    New question (or perhaps not):

    I am officially using the post office to send official US mail.

    What is the definition of 'for official purposes'?
    Pretty much if you are required to carry a firearm in the capacity of your job, and you are doing that job while on postal property, then you may carry. Some examples: Law Enforcement Officers, Military who are carrying in the execution of their duties, or a Postal Inspector who is required to carry a gun on the job.


    How about armed security gaurds.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    On getting a drivers license, require defensive driving tactics class and hazardous driving conditions training "snow, rain, dust."

    Possession of drugs, should be the same as alcohol. Legal in your own home. DUI, since driving is a privilege, would = harsh punishments, as listed above.

    Driving while texting/calling should be fine, until they get into an accident while doing so. Some (few) people can manage to do that and drive fine. Others are horrible at doing so. But to punish everyone for something that a group does wrong, would be irresponsible, and an "I know what is best for YOU" mentality. Just like all of the recent shootings that have been going on. The Brady Campaign likes to take everyone's 2A rights and flush them down the toilet because of the few that decide to kill people using a specific TOOL.

  14. #14
    Regular Member swatspyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    University Place, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    swatspyder wrote:
    "the ability to do whatever one wants without consequence - unless they hurt someone else." - This is EXACTLY what I am saying should be done.
    and that is exactly what I understood you to be saying. Basically, then we would only need a small handful of laws:

    Any person who, by negligent actions, causes harm to another shall be fined not more the $500 and/or 30 days in jail.

    Any person who, by negligent actions, causes harm to another that results in the loss of a limb or the use of one of the senses shall be fined not more than $5,000 and/or 1 year in jail.

    Any person who, by negligent actions, causes harm to another that results in the death of that person shall be jailed for life.

    That would basically be it. Everything else would be legal. Do I have that correct?

    Then we start with a case where you run a red light and you hit me, causing me injury. Well, then, you can claim that I was the negligent party because I should have known that there is no specific law against running a red light and, therefore, I should have been more cautious when going through a green light, knowing that the red light was merely a suggestion to stop, but not illegal to not stop.
    That final case would be covered by #1 or #2 that you listed. You are defining this too simply. Instructors teach you that RED means stop, YELLOW means proceed with caution, and GREEN means go. To not understand that would be negligent on that person's part. And considering what I said above about requiring more training for receiving a license would apply to what the instructors teach you.

    It's like what is written in the bible. How many people follow God, but don't follow (all of) the 10 Commandments?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    That is kinda like hunting without a license. No license, no bag limit.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    Ok let me get this straight...

    1) No signs

    2) No enforcement (jurisdiction says it is the US Postal Inspector, and I am sure there are how many convictions? 0 would be my guess unless it is a secondary citation)

    I am sure there is CC at the post office all the time. Remember 1 in 20 adults in the state of WA have their CPL.
    Live Free or Die!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    PNW, Washington, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    jinj wrote:
    Since you allowed to mail a hand gun via the USPS, their laws aren't clear.
    No, you are not allowed to mail a handgun via USPS.

    From the ATF:
    A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.
    If you are FFL you can.
    Licensed persons can ship a rifle, shotguns, or handguns by US Mail.

Posting Permissions

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