Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Post Office???

  1. #1
    Regular Member Campo6245's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32

    Thumbs up Post Office???

    Hello everyone. I am curious if anyone knows if you can LEGALLY carry in a post office. I am located in Rhode Island and I called the ATF and they instructed me that the laws are based upon each state. I spoke to my local AG's office and State Police and no one could give me an exact answer, plus I would like to see that law so that I can site it if I should have a problem. Any help is much appreciated.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13
    And yet, you are allowed to ship guns through the mail. I guess that counts as "official purposes".

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightdog View Post
    And yet, you are allowed to ship guns through the mail. I guess that counts as "official purposes".
    That is not "carrying" and is subject to other laws/rules.

    The Post Office ban on guns for the public has been the subject of much scrutiny and debate as was the NPS rule - now changed.

    Likely could be settled by someone having "standing" i.e. arrested for violation. Any volunteers?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    As replied in the other thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT
    Illegal at the Federal level. State law has nothing to do with it.

    39 CFR 232.1
    http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....0.1.1&idno=39

    (l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.
    Isn't mailing a letter or buying postage an official purpose of the PO?
    Where do they define "official purpose"?
    I'm not eager to be a test case, but if they don't define their terms the law is useless.

    Actually, we all know the law is useless anyway, since it doesn't stop criminals from coming in armed to commit various crimes. And unless they have metal detectors (they don't) there's no way to stop someone from carrying concealed, or in a case, or a purse.

    If what they meant to say was "except for employees of governmental units or agencies while performing their official duties" why didn't they actually say that?
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "Official purposes" will be interpreted by the courts as purposes that defined for officials of the government.

    The root word of "official" is office (not the room or building, but the person). Other literal ways to say "official purposes" include "purposes of the official" and "purposes of the holder of the office."

    Let's don't worry about the wording and trying to find a way around it. Let's get rid of the provision. The problem is not in how the regulation is worded or what it might mean, but the mere presence of such a restriction on our rights.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    If what they meant to say was "except for employees of governmental units or agencies while performing their official duties" why didn't they actually say that?
    Aah, maybe because their intent was to disarm everybody , ya think?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Stepehens City, VA
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    That is not "carrying" and is subject to other laws/rules.

    The Post Office ban on guns for the public has been the subject of much scrutiny and debate as was the NPS rule - now changed.

    Likely could be settled by someone having "standing" i.e. arrested for violation. Any volunteers?
    Anyone know if the NRA has filed a suit over Postal Carry? I don't understand why someone needs to go to jail in order for action to be taken.

    I don't understand why they aren't suits filled throughout the US challenging various laws such as 1000ft from school property and States not allowing open carry.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by cyras21 View Post
    Anyone know if the NRA has filed a suit over Postal Carry? I don't understand why someone needs to go to jail in order for action to be taken.

    I don't understand why they aren't suits filled throughout the US challenging various laws such as 1000ft from school property and States not allowing open carry.
    The NRA has visibly NOT supported/promoted OC.

    To not understand why there have not been suits filed re PO and GFSZ is to not understand the rule of law pertaining to such action. Criminally one must have standing. Civilly one must have injury/loss. Then one must have money, lots of it and to have any meaning it needs to get to an appellant court (a court of record) to apply to others - even that is of limited benefit unless it were to go to SCOTUS. IANAL

    It can be more efficient and productive to work to change the laws where the legal tender is your vote. These things didn't happen over night and no way will past trends be reversed by wishing them away.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Campo6245's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32
    I am a private detective, and I am curious if that counts as me being an official or on official business. I have walked into post offices looking for information on individuals. So I am "on the job" while in the post office. I really wish I could get an FBI agent to come to my house with a book and a highlighter one of these days, and a signed contract stating that if he is wrong I will not be prosecuted. I am not being unreasonable right? LOL

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Campo6245 View Post
    I am a private detective, and I am curious if that counts as me being an official or on official business. I have walked into post offices looking for information on individuals. So I am "on the job" while in the post office. I really wish I could get an FBI agent to come to my house with a book and a highlighter one of these days, and a signed contract stating that if he is wrong I will not be prosecuted. I am not being unreasonable right? LOL
    IANAL.

    But, I'd say that you are not an "official" and cannot be on "official" business. By "official," I am sure the law means a government office holder.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Campo6245's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32
    You are absolutely correct to speculate. I too would "assume" it means that. I know a bounty hunter, however, that told me he can go into the post office anytime he wants because he would go and update wanted posters. Of course, he never quoted me a law. Just like open carry in RI. It is illegal UNLESS you have an AG permit. You will be surprised at how many people out there do not know this. I know someone who told me that I should cover up my piece when I walked into his office. He said to be careful, but when I pulled the highlighted page from the law book out, he made a copy of it and said, "WOW, I didn't know that." I really feel that we should find out the laws for sure and have them interupted correctly because it seems like if you look 9 places you get 10 answers. I spoke with the FBI office today and they told me the same at the BATF, "It is up to a state to individually make laws pertaining to postal office carry." The post office told me to ask the BATF.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Is not denial of rights both standing and injury/loss? Seemed to work pretty well for women and minorities.....
    How is there denial of your rights if you are sitting in your living room and decide you don't like a law?

    When you walk outside and go for a stroll, have no interaction with anyone, have your rights been violated?

    On the other hand with the same scenario, you are stopped, checked out and delayed in continuing your journey for two hours because you wore a loud, offensive Hawaiian Shirt, you might be well on your way to having standing.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    The Second Amendment Foundation used denial of rights as standing to bring a lawsuit against the City of Seattle when mayor Nickels enacted an illegal gun ban. None of the plaintiff's in that case were ever detained, prosecuted or carried in any of the places Nickels banned guns at. They based their standing upon the fact that mayor Nickels illegally denied their rights to be in public places while armed with firearms. All I am saying is that if a case of denial of rights exists, that is all the standing that is required to file a lawsuit. The SAF won their case in Washington State Court and the City of Seattle was forced to revoke their gun ban and take down their signs.

    Bob Warden, in the same Seattle gun ban actually got himself tossed out of a public place, filed a lawsuit in Federal court against Seattle and lost his case.
    Excellent point - I appreciate the reminder.

    See that I need to keep an open mind and do more research before opening my yap.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by cyras21 View Post
    Anyone know if the NRA has filed a suit over Postal Carry? I don't understand why someone needs to go to jail in order for action to be taken.

    I don't understand why they aren't suits filled throughout the US challenging various laws such as 1000ft from school property and States not allowing open carry.

    Lawsuit to allow carry in Post Office facilities
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  15. #15
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Hopefully this goes through. One less "victim zone". Can't wait until the day that we have our full 2nd Amendment rights retored and there are no "victim zones" left.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  16. #16
    Regular Member Campo6245's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    32

    Amen brother!

    Quote Originally Posted by protect our rights View Post
    hopefully this goes through. One less "victim zone". Can't wait until the day that we have our full 2nd amendment rights retored and there are no "victim zones" left.
    amen brother!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Illegal at the Federal level. State law has nothing to do with it.

    39 CFR 232.1

    http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....0.1.1&idno=39
    I still contend that carry for self defense constitutes an official purpose. Has anyone found a list of official purposes yet?
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    I still contend that carry for self defense constitutes an official purpose. Has anyone found a list of official purposes yet?
    I would anticipate that deciding "official" would be in the court's domain - haven't found a volunteer yet to test this.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The word "official" derives from the same root as "office." "Official purposes" refers to the purpose of the office, the office referring to a governmental position to which a person is appointed or elected, not to a room or rooms.

    In other words, if someone's government job requires that they carry in a post office, that carry will not violate the federal regulation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The word "official" derives from the same root as "office." "Official purposes" refers to the purpose of the office, the office referring to a governmental position to which a person is appointed or elected, not to a room or rooms.

    In other words, if someone's government job requires that they carry in a post office, that carry will not violate the federal regulation.
    Thinking out loud over here...

    What if that individual was a civilian contractor for the government? Say their employer is IEM, but they're performing a job that DHS has contracted out to IEM. If that job requires them to carry, is it considered official?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by x3atthis View Post
    Thinking out loud over here...

    What if that individual was a civilian contractor for the government? Say their employer is IEM, but they're performing a job that DHS has contracted out to IEM. If that job requires them to carry, is it considered official?
    I am not a lawyer, so I don't want to attempt to deal with the nuances. I was trying to make a gross point in the law, basically that ordinary citizens just doing business with the post office clearly fall on the side of the line known as "not official." A police officer performing his duties clearly falls on the side of the line known as "official." Exactly where that line between the two falls, I don't know.

  22. #22
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Based on the Dorosan case out of the Court of Appeals in '08, I would not suggest carrying anywhere on postal property.
    Last edited by ProShooter; 04-04-2011 at 08:55 AM.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by ProShooter View Post
    Based on the Dorosan case out of the Court of Appeals in '08, I would not suggest carrying anywhere on postal property.
    What's interesting in that case is the fact that the court ruled very narrowly, only ruling on carry in the restricted/gated employee parking areas, and did not address the public parking areas.

    Not wanting to be the test case for the public parking areas, I will continue to park on the street and lock my firearm in the truck while I go inside.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    What is an AG permit?
    Ignore smallfish - he is a trolling spammer - being resolved.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    What's interesting in that case is the fact that the court ruled very narrowly, only ruling on carry in the restricted/gated employee parking areas, and did not address the public parking areas.

    Not wanting to be the test case for the public parking areas, I will continue to park on the street and lock my firearm in the truck while I go inside.
    Update on the current case:

    ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, filed
    December 6, 2010 [6], is granted with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended
    complaint (20 days) by April 11, 2011
    .

    But it's not over yet. The original complaint covered both inside the building and the public parking lot together. The have filed an amended complaint that separates the two.
    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

Posting Permissions

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