USPS Carry (OC or CC)

[CitizenJohn]

Follow this link to read an article, albeit anti-gun, concerning a recent Denver District Court decision concerning leaving a firearm locked in a motor vehicle while in the USPS parking lot. Don't fail to read the last paragraph though. Go figure.

http://smartgunlaws.org/extreme-district-court-decision-allows-guns-in-post-office-parking-lot/

 

[28kfps]

Follow this link to read an article, albeit anti-gun, concerning a recent Denver District Court decision concerning leaving a firearm locked in a motor vehicle while in the USPS parking lot. Don't fail to read the last paragraph though. Go figure.

http://smartgunlaws.org/extreme-district-court-decision-allows-guns-in-post-office-parking-lot/

Taken from the article “The court then found—quite correctly—that the post office building itself was a sensitive place where restrictions on the right to bear arms were presumably justified”

Every mass shooting has taken place in a gun free zone. As we all know a gun free zone is a target rich killing zone. I would not classify the post office as a sensitive place however as a dangerous target rich area for the next derange mass murder.

 

[Maverick9]

If this decision is allowed to stand, it would allow guns to be brought within a few feet of all sorts of government buildings, which could gravely endanger the safety of everyone who uses those buildings.

The conclusion does not follow the premise. They're never going to say 'how it would gravely endanger the safety of EVERYONE who uses the building'.

It will only endanger the safety of criminals and mass murderers who would use the building, and only then if someone who was nearby happened to notice and cared to intervene - most don't, they exit for their own safety.

 

[color of law]

The Supreme Court is not a real court. It’s like the House of Lords; nothing more than a quasi-political body.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The Supreme Court is not a real court. It’s like the House of Lords; nothing more than a quasi-political body.

+1 Political connected lawyer oligarchs in black robes. They should be made to wear powder wigs.

 

[eye95]

Wow. Serious denial of reality in those last two posts. Barring some sea change, the Supreme Court wields a lot more power than the House of Lords.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Wow. Serious denial of reality in those last two posts. Barring some sea change, the Supreme Court wields a lot more power than the House of Lords.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Nope a serious recognition that the court has gone way beyond it's courtly functions of simply judging. They have also thrown out justice, that isn't part of their repertoire any more.

 

[eye95]

Nope a serious recognition that the court has gone way beyond it's courtly functions of simply judging. They have also thrown out justice, that isn't part of their repertoire any more.

Nope. Your analogy implies that it is powerless, like the House of Lords. You may think it goes to far, but you cannot reasonably dispute the power it weilds.

BTW, if there is a dispute in what the law says or means, is it not judging to settle the question?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[aadvark]

To ALL Whom are Concerned:

United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 930 Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm Actually Inisde a Federal Facility.

Nothing under Federal Law Prohibits a Firearm Outside of a Federal Facility, though.

In This State, wherein The Lawsuit was brought, Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104 Allows a Local Governmental Unit to Prohibit Open Carry in a Specific Building within that Local Governmental Units' Jurisdiction.

Both Statutes Use The Preposition 'in', and are therefore, Similiar to one another. Neither Statute, State or Federal, Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm 'on' Government Property, but rather, 'in' a Government Building.

aadvark

 

[eye95]

To ALL Whom are Concerned:

United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 930 Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm Actually Inisde a Federal Facility.

Nothing under Federal Law Prohibits a Firearm Outside of a Federal Facility, though.

In This State, wherein The Lawsuit was brought, Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104 Allows a Local Governmental Unit to Prohibit Open Carry in a Specific Building within that Local Governmental Units' Jurisdiction.

Both Statutes Use The Preposition 'in', and are therefore, Similiar to one another. Neither Statute, State or Federal, Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm 'on' Government Property, but rather, 'in' a Government Building.

aadvark

I was under the impression that there is a code section specific to post offices that includes all property of the post office--including outside space that belongs to the post office. If I am wrong, please let me know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[notalawyer]

To ALL Whom are Concerned:

United States Federal Code 18 U.S.C. 930 Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm Actually Inisde a Federal Facility.

Nothing under Federal Law Prohibits a Firearm Outside of a Federal Facility, though.

In This State, wherein The Lawsuit was brought, Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104 Allows a Local Governmental Unit to Prohibit Open Carry in a Specific Building within that Local Governmental Units' Jurisdiction.

Both Statutes Use The Preposition 'in', and are therefore, Similiar to one another. Neither Statute, State or Federal, Prohibits The Possession of a Firearm 'on' Government Property, but rather, 'in' a Government Building.

aadvark

18 USC 930 does not apply to Post Office property.

39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930.

39 CFR 232.1 prohibits firearms on Post Office Property.

 

[eye95]

Thanks. That is what I thought was the case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Interestingly enough I have just today come to need to know the legalities of carrying "around about" but not "inside" post offices.

 

[notalawyer]

Interestingly enough I have just today come to need to know the legalities of carrying "around about" but not "inside" post offices.

Just remember that having your dog or cat in your car in a Post Office parking lot is just as illegal as having a firearm there. Unless of course it's a service animal. :banghead:

 

[JustaShooter]

18 USC 930 does not apply to Post Office property.

39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930.

39 CFR 232.1 prohibits firearms on Post Office Property.

So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then... Hmm.

 

[eye95]

So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then... Hmm.

A dangerous misrepresentation. From the CFR cited above:

Weapons and explosives. 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.

If you leave your firearm in you car while inside, you have "stored" it there. That car had better not be on postal property.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/410

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-title39-vol1/xml/CFR-2006-title39-vol1-sec232-1.xml

I wonder if the term "curtilage" means anything. The PO in my town has street, sidewalk, PO walkway to front door. The sidewalk and street are not PO property if I read 39/232.1 correctly.

If in doubt, ask a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

 

[notalawyer]

So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then... Hmm.

Correct, but there is a duly authorized Federal Regulation, which I can guarantee you will put you in Federal Prison just a quickly.

 

[eye95]

There is no law that says carry on a military installation is illegal. However, carry on one where regulations prohibit it, and I guarantee that you have violated the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[JustaShooter]

There is no law that says carry on a military installation is illegal. However, carry on one where regulations prohibit it, and I guarantee that you have violated the law.

I disagree. The law is the law, regulations are not. I'm not saying you won't suffer consequences, and in fact made no conclusions whatsoever other than it is not a matter of law that firearms are prohibited in the parking lot of a Post Office.

That said, it would appear to me to be an overreach to punish an offender as if they had violated the law. We have a constitutionally-defined method for enacting laws in this country for a reason. Extra-legal regulations like this one subvert that process. Regulations should be in place to define procedures for and implement the law, not expand it.