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.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.
TFredSec. 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.
Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.Thundar wrote: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.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.
TFredSec. 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.
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.Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.
Pagan wrote: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.Holy Dunkin Donuts! So basically possession in a post office is lawful technically.
TFred
And why was that?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".
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?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.
Its a damn mess, that's what it is.
This rule doesnt apply here. That rule doesnt apply there. A doesnt apply to B. B defers back to A.
Stupid federal nonsense.
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.
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: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.
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"?...this thread is about federal buildings and such,,, but not post offices....
...