• 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.

Carry in the post office!

1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
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??
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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??
Click to expand...

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]
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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]
Click to expand...

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'?
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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]
Click to expand...

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'?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

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

jinj wrote:
Since you allowed to mail a hand gun via the USPS, their laws aren't clear.
Click to expand...
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.​
 
T

tai4de2

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
121
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the same (flawed) logic that Seattle is using in its parks ban?

"Federal property" belongs to the people.
 
swatspyder

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Isn't this the same (flawed) logic that Seattle is using in its parks ban?

"Federal property" belongs to the people.
Click to expand...
I wish I could be president:idea: 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.
 
swatspyder

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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
 
swatspyder

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
amzbrady

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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]
Click to expand...

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'?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
How about armed security gaurds.
 
swatspyder

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
 
swatspyder

swatspyder

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
573
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 
J

jinj

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
25
Location
PNW, Washington, USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
jinj wrote:
Since you allowed to mail a hand gun via the USPS, their laws aren't clear.
Click to expand...
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.​
Click to expand...
If you are FFL you can.
Licensed persons can ship a rifle, shotguns, or handguns by US Mail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top