• 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.

Question about Open Carry in the USPS ?

nuc65

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
JamesB said:
There it is! Bonidy v. USPS.

From what I understand, the case is actually taken a small step instead of going for the whole enchalada. Currently it is just to consider carrying in or on the postal grounds (parking lot). Read more about it here:
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/12/bonidy-v-usps-postal-service-moves-to.html
Lawyer for this case is Jim Manly, who is also involved with the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Colorado State University.

Eagerly awaiting verdicts in both of those.
Click to expand...

enchilada
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

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

Badger Johnson said:
I sometimes fantasize about standing across the street from a banned, or GFZ while the employees are being held up, showing my HG, and wagging my finger, illustrating they'll just have to fend for themselves if someone 'goes postal'.

OK, slow day here, hehe.
Click to expand...

You dont need to fantasize about Not using Your gun to help others!
You have made it abundantly clear that you would never raise a finger in defense of anyone but yourself!
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I think third only to the open record nature of CHP information, and the GFSZA, this federal ban on USPS property is high on my list of most hated "gun laws".

I put it in quotes because nobody has ever been able to explain to me why the ban on self-defensive carry of properly holstered firearms by law-abiding citizens at the Post Office continues to exist.

The exception to the general ban, which is quoted several times above clearly includes:


(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes. ​


And if you pull up the Gun Control Act of 1968, and read the Purpose:


Purpose

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.​


So there you go... it is codified in Federal Law that personal protection is included in a list of lawful activities.

I wish we could throw these crooked judges in jail who issue rulings in direct conflict with the law.

I am still waiting for someone to give me a logical explanation of how this ban has been allowed to continue to exist.

TFred
 
Last edited:
G

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
TFred said:
I think third only to the open record nature of CHP information, and the GFSZA, this federal ban on USPS property is high on my list of most hated "gun laws".

I put it in quotes because nobody has ever been able to explain to me why the ban on self-defensive carry of properly holstered firearms by law-abiding citizens at the Post Office continues to exist.

The exception to the general ban, which is quoted several times above clearly includes:


(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes. ​


And if you pull up the Gun Control Act of 1968, and read the Purpose:


Purpose

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.​


So there you go... it is codified in Federal Law that personal protection is included in a list of lawful activities.

I wish we could throw these crooked judges in jail who issue rulings in direct conflict with the law.

I am still waiting for someone to give me a logical explanation of how this ban has been allowed to continue to exist.

TFred
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that the USPS ban is not based on the general ban (found in 18 USC 930). It is its own, separate ban that is codified separately without the "or other lawful purpose" exception.

Your complaint would work against the National Park Service ban on carry in buildings, but it doesn't affect the USPS ban in 39 CFR 232.1
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
grylnsmn said:
The problem with your argument is that the USPS ban is not based on the general ban (found in 18 USC 930). It is its own, separate ban that is codified separately without the "or other lawful purpose" exception.

Your complaint would work against the National Park Service ban on carry in buildings, but it doesn't affect the USPS ban in 39 CFR 232.1
Click to expand...
Heller should have fixed this. Hopefully the case in Colorado will give it the chance to do so.

TFred
 
Last edited:
scouser

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
and, unfortunately, the wording that applies to carrying at USPS is actually 'official purpose' not 'lawful purpose'
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
scouser said:
and, unfortunately, the wording that applies to carrying at USPS is actually 'official purpose' not 'lawful purpose'
Click to expand...
Gotcha... my last point is that Heller should invalidate that law, since it is government property, and therefore the restriction is in violation of the right that Heller affirmed the Second Amendment protects for us.

As with every other issue, it amounts to time and money.

TFred
 
Verd

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
Nevermind, I read up and saw TFred's posts. My mistake (I was basically asking about "other lawful purposes" and TFred already answered that for me).
 
Last edited:
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Verd said:
Wait a minute here....


According to this, you CAN carryin a firearm in a Federal facility if you are hunting or for other lawful purposes.

Is OC not a lawful purpose? What about CC? What is considered "lawful purposes" in regards to Subsection (a), number (3)?
Click to expand...
See Post #45. The USPS ban is based on a different regulation than the Federal Facility ban you quote.

TFred
 
G

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
TFred said:
Heller should have fixed this. Hopefully the case in Colorado will give it the chance to do so.

TFred
Click to expand...

The problem is that Heller essentially only established that the right to keep arms was protected, as it only dealt with having firearms within the home. It really said precious little about bearing arms.

What we need is a Supreme Court precedent that really focuses on the right to bear arms in order to correct this. (And, hopefully, it will clarify what the so-called "sensitive places" exception mentioned in Heller actually meant, in a narrow fashion.)
 
Last edited:
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
grylnsmn said:
The problem is that Heller essentially only established that the right to keep arms was protected, as it only dealt with having firearms within the home. It really said precious little about bearing arms.

What we need is a Supreme Court precedent that really focuses on the right to bear arms in order to correct this. (And, hopefully, it will clarify what the so-called "sensitive places" exception mentioned in Heller actually meant, in a narrow fashion.)
Click to expand...
All true... I was thinking of the fact that Heller dealt with Federal land in DC, which would be similar to the USPS property. The incorporation angle of McDonald doesn't really apply to Post Offices.

TFRed
 
Last edited:
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Schlitz said:
what I know is trumped by the law's definition. defined here


From another thread I believe everyone came to the conclusion that "part thereof" covered actual land, thus why having a gun in your car on a military installation is prohibited.

IF this is not the case, does anyone know what you are to be charged with when caught with a gun on a military base? any SPs out there?

EDIT: Any SP's that actually know the law?
Click to expand...

"building or part thereof"

'Consenses notwithstanding,' the meaning of the snippet in the sentence is difficult to interpret that way.

Building is simply that.
Part thereof would be a part of a building. If a postal facility is a tenant of a larger complex that houses other businesses, only the "part thereof" inhabited by the USPS would be an exclusion zone.
 
M

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
grylnsmn said:
The problem with your argument is that the USPS ban is not based on the general ban (found in 18 USC 930). It is its own, separate ban that is codified separately without the "or other lawful purpose" exception.

Your complaint would work against the National Park Service ban on carry in buildings, but it doesn't affect the USPS ban in 39 CFR 232.1
Click to expand...

Exactly. 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices at all.

wrightme said:
"building or part thereof"

'Consenses notwithstanding,' the meaning of the snippet in the sentence is difficult to interpret that way.

Building is simply that.
Part thereof would be a part of a building. If a postal facility is a tenant of a larger complex that houses other businesses, only the "part thereof" inhabited by the USPS would be an exclusion zone.
Click to expand...

Or in the case of the General Store having a PO counter within, the store itself is not prohibited....you just can't go behind said counter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top