Why aren't CCW holders allowed to carry into a Post Office?

Why doesn't some just email the US attorney's office or the FBI and ask for clarification on the matter? Or a the federal district judge in your area? Write a letter, get some answers. The law seems pretty clear as stated above, but you never know how some jerk is going to to use it against you.
 
I've learned to do things that make it possible for me to bob and weave through life staying armed 99.4% of the time. (just got my ccw renewed, so dang it, had to disarm twice, once to reapply and today to pick it up) but I don't give more money then I need to to unfriendly ccw places. So I don't go to post offices (going postal anyone? ) and I don't go to Ohio rest areas or most other places.

We do have a private postal service that charges a few cents more, but offers postal services, po box's and they don't have ccw rules.
 
Just sent the US attorney in my area this email:

Re: US Code Title 18 Section 930
Ms. Martin,
Below I have given a piece of the US code pertaining to the possession of firearms within a federal facility. Specifically concerning US Post Offices, under subsection d(3)* does a concealed weapons license (for the purpose of carrying a firearm concealed for self defense) consititute a 'lawful purpose'? If not, could you provide the appropriate case law on the matter?

Thank you for you time and help,
Robert ********
Homewood, AL

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
*(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
Click to expand...
 
Hugh:

THANK YOU!!!

Finally some clarity on the matter.

One might argue that statute overrides regulations - that the Postal Service can't enact regulations that are in conflict with the law - but there again, arguing costs a lot of money.

What are the penalty provisions for violating the regulation, do you know?
 
What are the penalty provisions for violating the regulation, do you know?
Click to expand...

39 CFR 232.1(p) says:

"Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated."


http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/39cfr232_03.html
 
The Ironic thing about the post office law... regardless of

how you interpret it, is that the post office historically is one of the few places where you just might need your concealed weapon....just like schools and banks. (yes I know banks are allowed carry in many states & some schools in a few).

So, once again the brilliant brain trust we elected has seen fit or at leasted attemped to make a 'gun free zone.' And how often has it worked to the opposite extreme?
 
Here's the entire quote: "(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."


No need to ask anybody's opinion about what that says. It's crystal-clear to me!
 
Alleykat:

Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
Click to expand...
In New Hampshire, open carry is a constitutional right and concealed carry is subject to a $10, four-year license. And federal law provides that hunting and other lawful purposes are exempt from the prohibition of carrying firearms on federal property.

So it's arguable that the "no weapons" regulation is abrogated by the state laws (including the Constitution) of New Hampshire, as well as federal law in places where carrying a firearm for self-defense can be considered a "lawful purpose."
 
It could also be argued that a violation of Postal Regulations (which have the same enforceability as law) wouldn't be "a lawful purpose."
 
But it should be a lawful purpose. Just one of thousands of laws and regulations that needs to be changed. Too bad it takes so long to get something done in this country. Oh, well. I'm in for the long haul.
 
The sticking point is "...other legal purposes." What is the definition of that? It doesn't say. Consider this though, OPEN carry is a legal form of carry in most places (even if it is harassed etc.). So open carry is a legal purpose for having a firearm on ones person. Yet, it would not be permitted for the general public to bring it into a federal facility. Argument could be made that therefore neither should CC be allowed in same facility.

Reading the law, as written, to me is saying no firearms allowed in general, with provisions for LEO, federal agents etc. to have an exemption. My impression is that the intent is similar to courthouses. Only designated staff can be armed.

That being said... is it a violation of the 2nd (shall not be infringed) to just arbitrarily ban the public from bearing arms on federal property? After all, if it is federal property that is for public use, (as opposed to a nuclear weapons storage bunker), the COTUS dictates that the right to bear shall not be infringed.

I guess it is questions like these that we have a SCOTUS for.
 
As I see it, my state's constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms for defense of myself and my family. That defines a clear, unambiguous, "lawful purpose" (the Constitution being the highest law of the state) for carrying a firearm, as far as I'm concerned.

If I had a fair judge and plenty of money, I'd bet that I'd win any case against me easily. But neither of those are a given.
 
I was just making potential legal arguments; however, living in a really small town, I just never feel motivated to carry in my local p.o. However, I have done it. No chance that the locals would prosecute, should I forget that I'm carrying one day and be "discovered". If there happened to be a fed in the place at the time, I'd assume that I'd be prosecuted. (what are the odds of that happening?)
 
I was just making potential legal arguments; however, living in a really small town, I just never feel motivated to carry in my local p.o.
Click to expand...
If you're going somewhere where you feel "motivated" to carry, you shouldn't go there in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top