• 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.

So according to this law...

garyad

New member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
25
Location
, ,
imported post

Wolftrap Filene Center -
Architects/Engineers:
Dewberry & Davis, John MacFadyen, Joseph Boggs

Builder:
G&C Construction Corporation
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Secion 101, the general purpose section of the 1968 GCA talks about lawful and personal protection.

There is a seperate law for the post office.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Secion 101, the general purpose section of the 1968 GCA talks about lawful and personal protection.

There is a seperate law for the post office.
Yes, interesting. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly says that carrying a firearm for personal protection is a lawful activity. Very handy to know.

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.
TFred
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
Thundar wrote:
Secion 101, the general purpose section of the 1968 GCA talks about lawful and personal protection.

There is a seperate law for the post office.
Yes, interesting. The Gun Control Act of 1968 explicitly says that carrying a firearm for personal protection is a lawful activity. Very handy to know.

Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.
TFred
Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Pagan wrote:
Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.
Well, IANAL, but I suspect there has been a boatload of case law established since 1968... Who knows if any of it changed the introductory section to the law.

TFred
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
Pagan wrote:
Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.
Well, IANAL, but I suspect there has been a boatload of case law established since 1968... Who knows if any of it changed the introductory section to the law.

TFred


I used to subscribe to the idea that "lawful carry" in a post office was fine. That was until a recent court decison. I can't place my fingers on it just yet, but there was a decision regarding a postal employee having a firearm in his vehicle. The court's ruling had words to the effect that "no one is allowed to have a firearm on postal property".

I'm looking for the ruling now. If I find it, I'll post it.


ETA - I think that this is the one I was thinking about - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

and to add further to it:

USPS spokesperson Joanne Vito told the Examiner.com that 39 CFR 232.1(l)


“applies to anyone coming into a Post Office or a Postal facility. The regulation prohibiting the possession of firearms or other weapons applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service. . . . Both open and concealed possession are prohibited, so storage of a weapon on a car parked in a lot that is under the charge and control of the Postal Service would be prohibited.”


It wasn't the court saying it, but the spokesperson relating thier statement based on the case cited. Either way, not a good idea anymore.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
I used to subscribe to the idea that "lawful carry" in a post office was fine. That was until a recent court decison. I can't place my fingers on it just yet, but there was a decision regarding a postal employee having a firearm in his vehicle. The court's ruling had words to the effect that "no one is allowed to have a firearm on postal property".
And why was that?

Because 18 USC 930 not the issue - a regulation was which does not have a lawful purpose exception, see my article on this.
 

crazydude6030

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Fairfax, va
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
I used to subscribe to the idea that "lawful carry" in a post office was fine. That was until a recent court decison. I can't place my fingers on it just yet, but there was a decision regarding a postal employee having a firearm in his vehicle. The court's ruling had words to the effect that "no one is allowed to have a firearm on postal property".

I'm looking for the ruling now. If I find it, I'll post it.


ETA - I think that this is the one I was thinking about - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

and to add further to it:

USPS spokesperson Joanne Vito told the Examiner.com that 39 CFR 232.1(l)


“applies to anyone coming into a Post Office or a Postal facility. The regulation prohibiting the possession of firearms or other weapons applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service. . . . Both open and concealed possession are prohibited, so storage of a weapon on a car parked in a lot that is under the charge and control of the Postal Service would be prohibited.”


It wasn't the court saying it, but the spokesperson relating thier statement based on the case cited. Either way, not a good idea anymore.
If thats rigth then just walking through land a post office rents/owns could get you in some deep deep.... or am I reading this wrong?
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

I think i will just go down to the local PO, unarmed, and see if I can find the sign (because there is not one on the entrance) and see which code they are using to enforce such non-sense.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

Pagan wrote:
I think i will just go down to the local PO, unarmed, and see if I can find the sign (because there is not one on the entrance) and see which code they are using to enforce such non-sense.

I used to use 2 different PO's and neither one had their 232 sign posted at the front entrance as required by law.

Now, I just use my local UPS Store for everything. They WELCOME me and my gun and they can do just about everything that the post office can do, and they do it better.
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

I am actually on good terms with our local post master, she is really nice. I would even say that we are friends, we give her our recent family pictures around the holidays and everything. I would hate to just stop using the USPS, around here anyway.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

Well, I've spent the morning staring at the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. Here's my conclusion, and I'll spare you all my analytical crap. The USPS is just plain wrong, and lacks the authority to enforce a regulation related to the lawful possession of firearms by non-employees carried for the purpose of self-defense. That doesn't mean it won't try, and it doesn't mean that a federal magistrate won't rubber-stamp their attempt.

The statutory grant of regulatory power only extends to functions "necessary and incidental" to the transmission of mail, there is no grant of authority to define and punish new crimes, nor is there any suggestion that 39 USC 232.1 is designed to abrogate the provisions of 18 USC 930. Moreover, 39 CFR 232.1(p) clearly states that the postal regulations are subject to all other federal and state law. So unless the post office in question is located on a military base, or in the Virgin Islands, or some other place where the United States IS the local government, 18 USC 930 is all anyone has to worry about.

I'd be willing to argue that defensive carry is a lawful purpose, if I had to defend someone on a charge of carrying in a post office. But I'd say that's a risk, because I don't know of any authority other than the definition in the Gun Control Act that supports that conclusion. Doesn't mean it's wrong, only that no court has said that it is right, as of yet.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

user wrote:
Well, I've spent the morning staring at the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. Here's my conclusion, and I'll spare you all my analytical crap. The USPS is just plain wrong, and lacks the authority to enforce a regulation related to the lawful possession of firearms by non-employees carried for the purpose of self-defense. That doesn't mean it won't try, and it doesn't mean that a federal magistrate won't rubber-stamp their attempt.

The statutory grant of regulatory power only extends to functions "necessary and incidental" to the transmission of mail, there is no grant of authority to define and punish new crimes, nor is there any suggestion that 39 USC 232.1 is designed to abrogate the provisions of 18 USC 930. Moreover, 39 CFR 232.1(p) clearly states that the postal regulations are subject to all other federal and state law. So unless the post office in question is located on a military base, or in the Virgin Islands, or some other place where the United States IS the local government, 18 USC 930 is all anyone has to worry about.

I'd be willing to argue that defensive carry is a lawful purpose, if I had to defend someone on a charge of carrying in a post office. But I'd say that's a risk, because I don't know of any authority other than the definition in the Gun Control Act that supports that conclusion. Doesn't mean it's wrong, only that no court has said that it is right, as of yet.
User - I understand what you've said, and in theory I agree. In my mind, 232.1(p) defers back to federal law and the US Code is as good as it gets. What I would like to know is what your thoughts are on the case cited aboveand here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

Speaking of unpublished opinions, here's another one:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/094084.U.pdf

My problem with these cases is that they only think about the application of the Second Amendment. There is a large contingent of gun-loving folks who are really eager to apply the Second to the states, they have a political axe to grind, and are looking to push that argument where possible.

I disagree with these folks, and I think that goal is short-sighted. I object to the whole notion of "substantive due process" and the "selective incorporation" of the Bill of Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. I take the position that the Bill of Rights only applies to the United States, and that each state's constitution determines what's appropriate in that state. England, France, Germany, Delaware, New York, California... each has its own power to determine what's right within its borders. On the other hand, an amendment to the Constitution isn't a self-sufficient bit of text - it is a modification of the entire document. So anything in the Constitution that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights is abrogated. The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures takes precedence, therefore, over the power to regulate interstate commerce (just to make up a f'rinstance). That's the nature of "amendment".

So it bothers me that these cases are solely about the application of the Second Amendment. In the Dorosan case, the guy was a USPS employee and the place where he kept his car, gun inside, was an employee parking lot. There are cases that say the Bill of Rights applies to federal employees, but none of that was brought into the case. In the Chester case, there was even a question of whether the defendant was lawfully carrying under state law. Well, both of these are unpublished and therefore not precedent.

I'd like to see a case that analyzes 39 USC 232.1 in terms of the inconsistency with other federal law and state law, all of which I suggest takes precedence over the USPS regulations. If there's someone out there who has a lot of money and can afford to take the time, I'd like to do a declaratory judgment action against the USPS bringing up all that other stuff, as well as the Second Amendment. The plaintiff would have to be someone who wants to be able to carry in a post office public parking lot, is lawfully in a position to do so, other than the regulation, and wants the Court to clarify whether or not he has to obey the regulation.
 

1245A Defender

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

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
  1. 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.
  2. Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
  3. A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
  4. Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
    1. the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
    2. the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
    3. the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
    1. Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    2. Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
hmm. Interesting


this thread is about federal buildings and such,,, but not post offices....

sooo anybody concidering carrying your hunting rifle, and deer tag thru a federal building on your way out to the woods?
 

jmb_nova

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
65
Location
Fairfax City, ,
imported post

I work in a Federally RENTED building in Ballston and as of now, I do not carry into the office. I have been following this thread and it is of huge interest to me.

Thanks guys.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

1245A Defender wrote:
...this thread is about federal buildings and such,,, but not post offices....
...
So, where does the distinction between "federal buildings and such" and "post offices" come from? How do you figure that a post office isn't a "federal building"?
 
Top