gluegun
Regular Member
imported post
A while back there was discussion about where in, for example, a grocery store that contains a postal counter could one carry. These locations are called "Contract Postal Units" as they almost exclusively exist on private property and are run by private entities.
The conflict comes in determining where a "post office" begins and the store ends. It is unlawful under federal law to carry a gun onto postal property (with the very limited exception of mailing it as described by law). How then, can a citizen determine what is postal property in a Contract Postal Unit (CPU)?
This case has nothing to do with guns. It involves a church running one of these CPUs and placing religious items such as prayer cards and donation boxes on the counter and nearby. These items are banned by Postal Regulations from official Post Offices, but no mention is made in the CPU operators handbook.
I haven't completely read this case yet, but it seems like it would provide and indication to the questions mentioned earlier. I'm posting it here in the event that it might contain useful information and I'll post additional details shortly.
Google Scholar hosting of 2nd Circuit decision
A while back there was discussion about where in, for example, a grocery store that contains a postal counter could one carry. These locations are called "Contract Postal Units" as they almost exclusively exist on private property and are run by private entities.
The conflict comes in determining where a "post office" begins and the store ends. It is unlawful under federal law to carry a gun onto postal property (with the very limited exception of mailing it as described by law). How then, can a citizen determine what is postal property in a Contract Postal Unit (CPU)?
This case has nothing to do with guns. It involves a church running one of these CPUs and placing religious items such as prayer cards and donation boxes on the counter and nearby. These items are banned by Postal Regulations from official Post Offices, but no mention is made in the CPU operators handbook.
I haven't completely read this case yet, but it seems like it would provide and indication to the questions mentioned earlier. I'm posting it here in the event that it might contain useful information and I'll post additional details shortly.
Google Scholar hosting of 2nd Circuit decision