US Post office is anti-2nd amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im going to go way out on a limb here with a question, way way out...

18 U.S. Code § 930(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to— (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

would anyone legally carrying a gun, such as with a CHL, be considered a "lawful purpose"?
 
The actual wording COULD be considered too contradictory & ambiguous for enforcement & argued in court.

You CAN mail long guns as a regular non-FFL citizen, so you CAN legally bring a gun onto their property.

Much depends on what you can persuade a judge to accept as the definition of "lawful purposes" should somebody attempt to prosecute if you have a permit & you're there mailing something.
Denis
 
I lost respect when they raised first class postage from three to four cents.
Click to expand...
I regained it when they went to forever stamps. They announce the rate changes ahead of time. You realize the return you can get by buying postage right before the rate changes? Then send them to the IRS to pay your taxes.
Sensitive b/c people need to drop their absentee ballots...

When I played golf competitively I always had my golf clubs in my trunk when I went to the post office. When I shot competitively I never had firearms in my trunk at the post office daily. AND, if your still on this train, I have some s̶w̶a̶m̶p̶ development opportunities for you in Florida.

So, what if there is a bomb threat or something and they bring in dogs who smell the powder in my trunk and they searched it?

BTW, don't handle powder before going to federal court. Reloading, or in my case reorganizing, can wait until after the court session.
 
I've seen post offices where people still smoke cigarettes while waiting in line.... Just sayin.

When I go to the PO, I just park on the public street, secure my gun and go in
 
CHeck yor state laws first. Most States Companys can NOT ban you from a fire arm in their parking lot only inside the building.
 
4runnerman said:
CHeck yor state laws first. Most States Companys can NOT ban you from a fire arm in their parking lot only inside the building.
Click to expand...
"Most" states? That would imply that well over half the states have laws that do not allow business owners to prohibit their employees from having firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots. Considering that it has been BIG news when a couple of states enacted such laws within the past two or three years, my guess is that it's actually well short of 50%, in which case it isn't "most" states.

Which begs the point that the USPS is not (as has been mentioned) a private business, and it is not subject to state laws. The prohibition against firearms on USPS property is in federal law. 39 CFR 232.1:

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to—
(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;
(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.
...
(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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...
Seems clear enough to me. I don't like it, and I don't think it should be there ... but there it is.
 
Last edited:
(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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...

It's clear to me too. I don't see anything in this statute that prohibits someone from disarming themselves before they get out of their vehicle and locking the gun inside their own vehicle. Locking a gun inside your glove box before going inside of a post office is not storing a firearm on postal property. It is securing a firearm in a private vehicle so as not to carry it (concealed or openly) on postal property. If the intent of the statute is to prohibit licensed concealed carry folks from locking up their guns in their vehicles while simply using the post office, then the legislature would have said "including but not limited to temporary storing firearms inside of a private vehicle in the parking lot of a any post office".

So, I don't see it as breaking any law by simply disarming myself and locking my gun in my console before getting out of my car to enter the post office.
 
Locking a gun inside your glove box before going inside of a post office is not storing a firearm on postal property.
Click to expand...

IF the PO is in a strip mall, you are correct; if it is solely PO property you are incorrect
 
Just go to a smaller post office, any sizable town has many. Many small towns have one. I've yet to see one so large that you couldn't park on the public street or across the street. Most of the older ones don't have a parking lot of its own anyway
 
They have the freedom and the right to ban guns in their buildings. It's their choice. That's America. But, they have also banned you from having a firearm in your own car in the parking lot. That's enforcing their views to make you adhere to them outside their facility. They are forcing their choice on us. That's oppression.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't oppression. You don't have to park in their parking areas.

I just lost respect for the US postal service.
Click to expand...

So you respected them for oppressing you when you were in their buildings, but now you don't respect them for oppressing you in their parking areas? LOL.
 
Considering where the term "Going Postal" originated

Where I used to work before retirement, we suddenly were hit with a "NO FIREARMS" policy. I always thought it had lawyer all over it, and the rational was this:
Should there be an incident wherein an employee started shooting up the workplace, IF the employer has a "no guns" policy then the employer is absolved from liability. Without the no guns policy then a shrewd lawyer might be able to pin liability on the employer on behalf of shooting victims, that resulted from the employee using a gun. Allowing firearms on the premises opens the door for a deranged employee to bring a firearm and use it for less than sanitary purposes.

Realistically, we all know that the policy will not keep someone that has evil deeds planned from executing those acts. But employer liability is a huge issue. Using seatbelts in automobiles when driving company cars is a good example of how this works. Even though the employee can thumb his nose at the policy, if he is not using a seatbelt and is injured or killed while driving a company vehicle, and the employer can prove they have the seatbelt policy and have provided training to employees that using a seatbelt is required, they are probably not exposed to liability compensation. Hard hats or other personal protection required by an employer is another example.

It can be argued that requiring employees to use seat belts is an infringement on their freedom, but the widow's lawyer will not be concerned in the slightest about how the dead employee's freedom was infringed. The lawyer and widow will only be interested in proving the employer was at fault and therefor liable for several million peso in compensation.
 
Yes Double Naught Spy. Americans should have the freedom to make their own rules in their house. Do you not respect that? When they apply their rules in a parking lot, it applies their rules to your whole trip there and anywhere else you go for the rest of the day having nothing to do with their business. That I do not respect.
 
Skans said:
It's clear to me too. I don't see anything in this statute that prohibits someone from disarming themselves before they get out of their vehicle and locking the gun inside their own vehicle. Locking a gun inside your glove box before going inside of a post office is not storing a firearm on postal property. It is securing a firearm in a private vehicle so as not to carry it (concealed or openly) on postal property. If the intent of the statute is to prohibit licensed concealed carry folks from locking up their guns in their vehicles while simply using the post office, then the legislature would have said "including but not limited to temporary storing firearms inside of a private vehicle in the parking lot of a any post office".

So, I don't see it as breaking any law by simply disarming myself and locking my gun in my console before getting out of my car to enter the post office.
Click to expand...
I suspect that this is wishful thinking, and that a court would disagree with you. Laws typically aren't written that way, and in this case, it's a bit absurd to think that the law was meant to prohibit parking your car long-term on USPS property while storing your gun in it. That leads to a fairly obvious conclusion: that the law was in fact intended to prohibit "...securing a firearm in a private vehicle so as not to carry it ... on postal property."

This is just a reminder -- it's against the rules here to advocate breaking the law, no matter how much we may disagree with the law in question. It's not something responsible gun owners do, and advocating such behavior on the internet makes us all look bad.

If your post has been edited or deleted, it's because you were skating to close to that line.
 
Last edited:
There was a case a while back of a postal employee who had a CCL, and always left his weapon in his private vehicle, parked in the PO parking lot, and was eventually ratted out by a fellow employee. I know he was fired, and charged, federally, but I don't know what the outcome of the criminal case was.
 
When they apply their rules in a parking lot, it applies their rules to your whole trip there and anywhere else you go for the rest of the day having nothing to do with their business.
Click to expand...

So basically, you have a double standard that only interiors of building should the landowner/manager have control over and not areas exterior to the building because of your level of inconvenience in conforming to rules on property you don't own or manage. Okay. Got it.

If the courts rule they have control of their own property, inside and out, why should you think anything is different than if they just had control of the interior? Should they not be allowed to control their own property in accord with the law just as laws allow you to control your own property?
 
: that the law was in fact intended to prohibit "...securing a firearm in a private vehicle so as not to carry it ... on postal property."
Click to expand...

Your conclusion is not obvious at all. It could mean that people who work at the post office can't store firearms on the premises. It could mean that if you have a post office box, you can't store firearms in the box. My car is private property. A firearm being stored in my car is being stored on private property. Look at the laws that prohibit people from bringing firearms on school property - many are explicit about whether or not you can have a firearm locked up in your car in the parking lot, and if so go into details on how it must be locked up and/or stored in the vehicle.

This law is beyond ambiguous, especially in light of other laws that have been passed to address this very same thing.
 
Skans said:
This law is beyond ambiguous, especially in light of other laws that have been passed to address this very same thing.
Click to expand...
I don't think the law is ambiguous at all. I think you are twisting it beyond reason so as to justify what you think (and we all think) you should be able to do.

You have read the law, so you have every right to conduct yourself according to what you think it means. For your sake, I hope you don't become a test case, because I don't think you would stand an ice cube's chance in the warm place in court.

It's clear enough to me. One day I needed to transact something and I was passing by a post office that's not in my normal area of operations. I am accustomed to parking on the street and leaving my carry piece in the car while I check my post office box. This post office didn't have any on-street parking, and it had a large customer lot behind it. I pulled in, disarmed as usual, and got halfway to the door before I realized that I was parked IN a USPS lot.

I aborted my errand, got back in the car and boogied just as fast as I could. I have no doubt what the law says or means, and I'm too old and too poor to become the test case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top