• 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.

Open Carrying on Postal Property

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,594
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Below is a free content document. The document, if used, should be verified by your own research to verify its soundness in presenting a legal theory supported by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should anyone decide to use it, I would suggest it also be CC: to your local Post Master.

Enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • Carrying on Post Office Property.pdf
    254.7 KB · Views: 24

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,793
Location
Granite State of Mind
I hope that whomever wrote that never submits a brief to a federal court.

While I agree with the conclusion, the formatting is an abomination.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
The author states (emphasis added):
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

While true, one must define (and be aware of) lawful purpose. The poster (USPS) limits lawful purposes to official purposes:
"No person on U.S. Postal Service® property may carry or store firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes. See Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1.".
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,594
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The author states (emphasis added):
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

While true, one must define (and be aware of) lawful purpose. The poster (USPS) limits lawful purposes to official purposes:
"No person on U.S. Postal Service® property may carry or store firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes. See Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1.".
The supreme court defined "lawful purpose". The agency does not have the power to redefine the term. The postal service does have the right to regulate their employees by specifying which employees may carry for official purposes. I suggest you reread the letter/notice. A regulation has to be supported by a law or statutory law. The regulation is not supported by the law.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
The supreme court defined "lawful purpose". The agency does not have the power to redefine the term. The postal service does have the right to regulate their employees by specifying which employees may carry for official purposes. I suggest you reread the letter/notice. A regulation has to be supported by a law or statutory law. The regulation is not supported by the law.
The USPS didn't redefine the term, but it appears that they did identify what purposes are lawful. Such a description would, by definition, identify purposes which are not lawful, i.e. if'n' it ain't in the list, 'tain't allowed. It seems like the issue is the application of the definition(s) to everyone, not just to USPS employees.

Not sure I'd want to rely on this argument as a defense to a charge of carrying in/on a USPS facility.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,059
Location
here nc
2a4all, et al., show the nice arresting officers the document and there is a 'wink & nod' agreement the officers don't put their handcuffs on TO TIGHT!

:eek::oops::rolleyes:

but i agree not sure i want to be the flag bearer to lead the way...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,594
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Where in the letter/notice does it say that the person that sent the letter/notice was going to be the pinkie? All the letter says is if no response was received in a reasonable amount of time (60 days) it would be presumed correct.

After that time the person that sent that letter/notice may choose to take whatever action that would be appropriate after the reasonable amount of time had passed.

If it were me and if I got NO response I would send a second letter/notice informing them that I was going to open carry in XYZ post office on such in such time and day. The second letter/notice would also be sent to the the local police chief and the station master of that particular post office. The date of the open carry would be 60 days out from the date of the second letter/notice.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Where in the letter/notice does it say that the person that sent the letter/notice was going to be the pinkie? All the letter says is if no response was received in a reasonable amount of time (60 days) it would be presumed correct.

After that time the person that sent that letter/notice may choose to take whatever action that would be appropriate after the reasonable amount of time had passed.

If it were me and if I got NO response I would send a second letter/notice informing them that I was going to open carry in XYZ post office on such in such time and day. The second letter/notice would also be sent to the the local police chief and the station master of that particular post office. The date of the open carry would be 60 days out from the date of the second letter/notice.
Might want to also send the letter to the Postal Inspection Service, as they are responsible for enforcing USPS regulations. Not sure the local police chief even has jurisdiction.
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
78
Location
, ,
I believe that postal carriers have the right to be armed if I'm not mistaken?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,059
Location
here nc
I believe that postal carriers have the right to be armed if I'm not mistaken?
276.22 Possession of Firearms by Postal Service Employees

Except for Postal Service employees who are authorized by the chief postal inspector or by the inspector general, Postal Service employees are prohibited from possessing firearms in the following instances:

a. While on official duty, either on or off Postal Service property.

b. While on or within Postal Service property at any time.

The term “possessing” includes carrying or storing of firearms.


Note: authorized concerns designated postal police and inspectors ~ not postal carriers!
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,793
Location
Granite State of Mind

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,793
Location
Granite State of Mind
Please explain. And please point to the definition of "federal installation."
You cited 18 USC 930. There is no "federal installation" mentioned, only "federal facility". That was my point, and I'm sure that you already know the law.

18 USC 930 (g)
As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,594
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You cited 18 USC 930. There is no "federal installation" mentioned, only "federal facility". That was my point, and I'm sure that you already know the law.

18 USC 930 (g)
As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
You didn't answer the question. Where in Title 50 is the term "federal installation" defined? I'll answer it for you. There is no definition for the made-up term "federal installation." It is a generic made up term. The sign sites the Statute, 18 USC 930. The installation is, as defined in 18 USC 930, a "federal facility."

But does federal installation mean the entire base? Who knows, it's not defined.
 
Last edited:
Top