The Post Office and concealed carry.

L

Longshot

New member
To the point: What would it take to reverse this crazy "no guns allowed" restriction on CHL holders? I assume that the ban exists because the Post Office is Federal property, but does anyone think we could get it changed?

Federal parks, too. Why can't CHL holders carry there? How is it any different from a state park?

I see some logic in the courthouse ban, so I'll leave that alone.

Does anybody think the NRA/GOA would take this on?

If we are going to incrementally get our rights back, maybe these are good places to start. Besides, how am I supposed to defend myself against mountain lions and disgruntled postal workers?
 
I was in the PO today. The gun did not stay in the car. With all of the shootings that have occurred at postal facilities over the years, including Pat Sherril's romp through the PO when I lived in Edmond, Ok, do you think for one minute that I believe that the PO would protect me from some nut case?
 
I always forget that I have protection when I make a quick stop at the PO. I really don't worry about it any more. Now, if they have guards and alarms put in, I'll just buy a stamp machine and get my stamps over the internet. As for sending stuff, I have a great deal with DHL. They will come to anyone's house, no matter where it is, pick up the package, weigh it, give you the bill for postage, you pay and they deliver. They don't (as far as I know) x-ray or look into your stuff.

The PO is a dying business. With stamps available online, other services for big packages, being able to pay bills online, etc.., this is one federal sink hole that is going to fail; that is unless the feds make alternatives illegal which they have tried.

Plus, with rent a cops they have "defending" the area.. is a joke. I remember once going into the PO in Valdosta, GA. I was carrying (have a permit) and was in a hurry. I had my .38 in an ankle holster at the time. Well, I get out of my car (after spending a half hour trying to get a parking place) and go in. Yes, I noticed the "No weapons allowed" sign. Now, some background on this building: It holds the IRS, the FBI, the PO, and social security offices. I wasn't thinking about the "No weapons allowed" or the fact that I didn't put my .38 in the center console. Well, I go up, wait in line (oh, also had the passport office) and then it my turn. I go up, pay for postage on my package, go back out. I have to go pee (now, the RAC is right in front of the PO's door) but I don't know where the restrooms are. I ask the RAC; he says that the downstairs BR's are closed, I have to go to 2nd floor (where IRS, FBI and SS offices are located). I take the elevator up. I go pee. I come out, say "howdy" to a few folks in suits, take the elevator downstairs, walk out. Well, as I walk to my car, I just happen to look down... MY PANTS CUFF IS ABOVE MY PISTOL!!!!. I'm sure that it was that way when I first came in, due to I didn't "hike" up my pants cuffs during the entire time (even going pee). It scared the (&*^*^) out of me but then I got to thinking... the RAC, the "suits", standing in line... NO ONE NOTICED. I'm glad they didn't but still... makes one think.

USP45usp
 
It's not prohibited

I don't have the federal code in front of me right now, but:

The code as commonly cited leaves out several inportant parts.

Carry is prohibited except for lawful purposes. The code specifically says that self defense is a lawful purpose. Therefore, concealed carry for self defense is ok in the PO.

There was a long thread at GT about this a while back. I'll do more research later to see if I can find the code I mentioned.
 
Lawful Purpose

The Federal Government has already stated, that in it's opinion, self defense IS NOT a lawful purpose for possessing a weapon.(unless you happen to be a high Government official, or Hollywood DNC activist. :rolleyes: ) I think that this came to light during the Emerson trial. :mad:
When arrested, it would be up to you to "prove" them wrong, and O'l Janet, and Bill don't like to be proven wrong. Just ask Vince Foster!!! Oh, that's right, you can't---HE'S DEAD!!!!!! :eek:
 
The United States Postal Service is a private entity, not a federal department. Therefore, wouldn't a post office be owned by the USPS, and not the Federal Government? And if that's the case, wouldn't CCW laws governing carry in private businesses also apply to the Post Office?

Rob
 
And if that's the case, wouldn't CCW laws governing carry in private businesses also apply to the Post Office?

Nope. Federal law sez so.

Federal parks, too. Why can't CHL holders carry there? How is it any different from a state park?

It's different 'cuz it's a federal park. Federal law sez you can't.

Until RKBA is clarified as an individual right, yer screwed. It all comes from the 2nd Amendment not being enforced for what it says.

<rant>
Someone needs to buy a true-blue M16 - unquestionably a "militia weapon" - through all currently required channels, then sue for return of the $200 tax on 2nd Amendment grounds. That's the cleanest, most workable way to make the gov't pay attention to its own rules. I'd like to do it, but believe that someone else can do it better than I can. Until some case that simple in clear is forced through, we're screwed on all other fronts.
</rant>
 
I don't patronize Postal 'Service' post offices anymore. I use privately owned and operated vendors. The small surcharge is well worth the higher quality of service and the lack of criminal criminal charges should someone look under my shirt.
 
Check out the Supremacy Clause which states that the Federal Laws supercede any state or local. While the Postal Service is admittedly a private Federal Corporation, it has been empowered to protect itself (how else do they get all those postal inspectors with arrest powers). The "no gun" law is probably intended to promote the post office as a safe workplace. Be that as it may, it adversely impacts those of us who seek to do business there.

I myself have carried a firearm into the Post Office - both in uniform. While this brazenly violated the law, it's not something one would expect them to call their Postal Police on.
 
P.O. Carry.

There is a grocery store in my town that has a place where you can do P.O. business. When we first got CC they posted a no CC sign. I asked why and they said it was because of the PO business. About six months later that sign came down.
At the Post Office in this same town there is a plaque out front which names and remembers those murdered in Edmond. Yes, Edmond is about 20 miles away. I do not believe any lawabiding citizen in Oklahoma would face a problem carrying in an Oklahoma P.O. because everyone here knows that it was the lack of a gun in the right hands that allowed P.S. to do what he did.
And yet the Postal Service refuses to allow their employees to carry legally.
At my place of employment we rate people (privately) that might "go postal". Does anyone else do the same at their work?
 
As already stated, the Post Office is a private organization. However, it is totally regulated and protected by Federal Laws because the Federal Government makes it their business to make sure mail is delivered. They found that it would supposedly be more efficient as a private entity instead of a government entity. That is debatable, but the same Federal laws are in place at a post office because it performs Federal duties.

I have yet to find a CHL instructor from my state or CCW instructor from another state that can verify that there is any reason why a CHL/CCW holder can legally enter a post office while carrying. If you do so, just remember that the law is not on your side in this matter and even if it is on your side, chances are the LEOs and courts don't know it yet. Want to be the poster child for concealed carry in post offices? Please do so that the rest of us can do it. Keep in mind that said circumstances may cost you a lot of money defending your position.
 
I'm sorry but after hours of research I can't find the law to substantiate my claims. If the search function was up at glocktalk, I'd have it for you.

As to the government not acknowledging that self defense falls under a "lawful purpose": I can see a federal judge deciding such, and directing a defense attorney not to use that defense in front of a jury, but what if they law one was charged with violating specifically says that self defense is a lawful purpose? Might that result in a different outcome? Might the defense attorney be allowed to argue to the jury that no violation took place, because the defendant was carrying for self defense, as specifically authorized under the law he's charged with?

I suppose if I ever get arrested for post office carry, that I'm going to demand a jury trial. I trust a jury more than I do a federal judge.
 
I wrote to Senator John Warner a while back (the other, Chuck Robb never met a gun control bill he didn't like). I asked Sen. Warner why CCW permit holders were not exempt from the ban on carry into post offices. His reply was a short three paragraphs:

Thank you for writing.

As you know under 18 USC §930, it is illegal for individuals, with the exception of LEOs, to posses a firearm while in a federal facility such as a post office. Yadda, yadda, yadda,

Again thanks for writing.

John Warner
Click to expand...

Nothing new and short on substance. I am writing to him again. Now that Allen is a Senator, I'll write too him too.

My biggest problem and the source of my complaints is the sentance in 18 USC §930 that says "other lawful carry". If a CCW is not "lawful carry" what is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top