Post Office Parking Lot?

Mailing a firearm falls under the "except for official purposes".

Official purposes refers to the presence of the firearm on postal property, not the presence of the person themselves.

For instance, a cop wears his duty firearm "for official purposes". A military person wears a firearm issued to them by the government "for official purposes" (although they probably wouldn't be at the post office!) A person mailing a gun has the gun itself there for the "official purpose" of mailing it.

Now, while Joe Citizen may be at the Post Office conducting postal business, the gun that he is wearing is for personal protection and is NOT for "official purposes" and, thus, illegal to possess, carry, or store on postal property.
 
[quote']This subject has been explored many times on this and other forums. To date, no one can cite a case where a CHL holder was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and punished for having a legal weapon in a private vehicle parked in a post office parking lot while on official business such as mailing a damn letter.
If any one can cite such a case, please do so. In the meantime, don't spit on the sidewalk since there is more case law available regarding that "crime". [/quote]

I don't believe anyone on this thread has stated people have been arrested. I only see people quoting the law as it is written. Just because you have not seen it on the internet, does not mean this has never happened.
 
Here we go again...

Title 39 - Postal Service
Chapter I - United States Postal Service
Subchapter D - Organization and Administration
Part 232 - Conduct on Postal Property
232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property.

Paragraph L
(l) 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.
Click to expand...

This cited section is from the Code of Federal Regulations not the United States Code. Stuff in the USC was passed by Congress; stuff in the CFR was written by the head of various federal departments or agencies. Look up the above citation, it will have listed a statute passed by Congress as it's authority. I looked this one up a year or so ago and found the empowering statute to be one where Congress is giving the head official in the postal service authority to set work place policies. I am not a postal employee, so the Postmaster General does not have the authority to criminalize my behavior. "person" should be read as post employee, official, contractor, etc. The legislative branch passes laws; the executive branch carries out those laws.

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I giving legal advice. I'm just drawing from my personal experience and research.
 
apr1775 said:
This cited section is from the Code of Federal Regulations not the United States Code. Stuff in the USC was passed by Congress; stuff in the CFR was written by the head of various federal departments or agencies. Look up the above citation, it will have listed a statute passed by Congress as it's authority. I looked this one up a year or so ago and found the empowering statute to be one where Congress is giving the head official in the postal service authority to set work place policies. I am not a postal employee, so the Postmaster General does not have the authority to criminalize my behavior. "person" should be read as post employee, official, contractor, etc. The legislative branch passes laws; the executive branch carries out those laws.
Click to expand...

Really?!? Well let's see. 39 USC 401
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/usc_sec_39_00000401----000-.html

grants authority to the Postal Service to
Subject to the provisions of section 404a, the Postal Service shall have the following general powers:
(1) to sue and be sued in its official name;
(2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this title, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions under this title and such other functions as may be assigned to the Postal Service under any provisions of law outside of this title;
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in that authority that causes it to apply only to employees of the Postal Service. And, section 404a referenced above does not limit their authority to employee's either:

§ 404a. Specific limitations
(a) Except as specifically authorized by law, the Postal Service may not—
(1) establish any rule or regulation (including any standard) the effect of which is to preclude competition or establish the terms of competition unless the Postal Service demonstrates that the regulation does not create an unfair competitive advantage for itself or any entity funded (in whole or in part) by the Postal Service;
(2) compel the disclosure, transfer, or licensing of intellectual property to any third party (such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and proprietary information); or
(3) obtain information from a person that provides (or seeks to provide) any product, and then offer any postal service that uses or is based in whole or in part on such information, without the consent of the person providing that information, unless substantially the same information is obtained (or obtainable) from an independent source or is otherwise obtained (or obtainable).
(b) The Postal Regulatory Commission shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
(c) Any party (including an officer of the Commission representing the interests of the general public) who believes that the Postal Service has violated this section may bring a complaint in accordance with section 3662.
Click to expand...

Your turn... show us where it applies to employees only, please.
 
AND, if you want case law, apr1775, how about DEL GALLO v. PARENT in the US Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=081511

The court ruled that paragraph (h) of 39 CFR 232.1 did apply to Del Gallo, prohibiting him from engaging in campaigning activities in the parking lot of the Post Office.

So, it can be reasoned that if (h) of the CFR applies to non-employees of the Postal Service, that paragraph (l) would just as well.

Folks, really.... we don't like the regulation, OK. That's a given. But the fact is, we ain't going to find a way around it. All we can do is hope to change it.
 
I believe the term "Official Purposes" does not pertain to one's legal authority to carry a weapon, but why you have it on either a Postal or other government facility. Technically, a LEO who goes to the Post Office to either mail a package or buy stamps is not on Official Business & could be construed as violating the rule. It is highly unlikely that the US Attorney's Office would go forward with charges, but you never know.
 
Here are the statutory authorities listed for the regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 13, 3061; 21 U.S.C. 802, 844; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403(b)(3), 404(a)(7), 1201(2).

taken from
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...;view=text;node=39:1.0.1.4.21;idno=39;cc=ecfr

Now, the only one of those statutes even mentioning firearms is 18 USC 3061 which allows certain postal employees to carry firearms. 39 USC 401 allows the postal service to make rules to allow it to execute its functions; such as protecting people trying to use the post office from being harrassed which was at issue in the Del Gallo case cited. Me having a pistol neatly tucked away under my garmet does not interfear with any post office activity. Most importantly, how would any post office official have any authority to declare my otherwise lawful activities a criminal act without first congress declaring that same act a crime.

The Constitution I swore to uphold while I was in the Navy, did not give post office officials dictator powers. ---exNavyMM2nuke
 
Still waiting...

Question: Where is the case law that is directly APPLICABLE to the OP's query?

Answer: There is NONE.
 
I believe the term "Official Purposes" does not pertain to one's legal authority to carry a weapon, but why you have it on either a Postal or other government facility. Technically, a LEO who goes to the Post Office to either mail a package or buy stamps is not on Official Business & could be construed as violating the rule. It is highly unlikely that the US Attorney's Office would go forward with charges, but you never know.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. The way I was told, if you are required by regulation to carry your weapon during non-working hours you are still technically on 'official business.' That is the exact way it was explained to me by my supervisor many years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top