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

Mvpel

Couple points MVPEL;

1. Do you see yourself as having the right to bear arms (for your constitutionally lawful purpose of self defense) in court rooms then? How about prisons where the public is allowed to visit inmates? How does your rationale hold up in those cases? How about in my home where I am the property owner and do not wish to allow you to have a gun? I'm a big supporter of the RTKBA, but I recognize certain situations where being armed is not a right.

2. Also for being one who is such a champion of freedom, I'm surprised you suggest that people should not dare to tread where there might be a encounter which would require self defense. That seems to me to forfeit territory to the criminals and the lawless. Sorry, not a tail tucker here.
 
"...my state's constitution guarantees me the right to bear arms for defense of myself and my family"

To bad you are on Federal property and the state does not have jurisdiction.
 
SSilicon - why borrow trouble? Don't get me wrong - being armed surely permits me to walk with confidence and self-assured poise when I happen to be downtown after dark, but that doesn't mean I go skipping down dark alleyways or elbowing my way into notorious bars just because I'm armed.

My point is, I'm armed when I leave the house. I don't try to guess where I might and might not "need" to be armed, any more than I try to guess where I might or might not need a fire extinguisher.

Brickeye - Jurisdiction is not the point, what is encompassed by the term "lawful purpose" is. Hunting is not guaranteed by my state's constitution, but that's allowed on federal property as a "lawful purpose."

Do you see yourself as having the right to bear arms (for your constitutionally lawful purpose of self defense) in court rooms then? How about prisons where the public is allowed to visit inmates? How does your rationale hold up in those cases? How about in my home where I am the property owner and do not wish to allow you to have a gun? I'm a big supporter of the RTKBA, but I recognize certain situations where being armed is not a right.
Click to expand...
If I had to draw up an exhaustive dissertation with every post, my fingers would get too tired.

What does a court room or prison or private property have to do with the front lobby of the post office anyway?
 
The sticking point is "...other legal purposes." What is the definition of that?
Click to expand...

I asked the local US attorney for case law concerning 'other legal purposes,' and there is none that their office could find. I was refered to the postal authorities for more information by which time I'd been made aware of the postal regulations forbidding firearms. I would assume there is no case law because the postal regulations trump 'other legal purposes' unless you are a LEO.
 
Postal regulations do not trump statute, as is explicitly noted in the regulations.

Statute provides that "hunting and other lawful purposes" are an exception to the ban on possession of firearms of federal property.

It's arguable that self-defense, particularly state-licensed self-defense, is a "lawful purpose."

But apparently no judge or jury has ruled on that argument as yet.
 
If you're going somewhere where you feel "motivated" to carry, you shouldn't go there in the first place
Click to expand...

That's largely an absurdity. There are lots of places that I go, where I don't feel motivated to carry. There are more urban, DemocRAT-infested areas, though, where I always carry.
 
Postal regulations do not trump statute, as is explicitly noted in the regulations.
Click to expand...

But are MORE restrictive rule would be unlikely to be considered trumping a statute.
A less restrictive rule maybe...
 
Yes CCW is a "lawful purpose", but it is NOT an "official purpose".

The post master general declared carrying firearms onto POSTAL PROPERTY (it is not "federal property"), or into a post office is illegal - and it is part of federal code - it is a federal regulation. It is illegal.



TITLE 39--POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PART 232--CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents

Sec. 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.

...

(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.
 
They can't change the effect and import of a law passed by Congress simply by enacting a regulation to the contrary.

Or rather, they can try, but it won't hold water in a fair court of law.
 
mvpel said:
They can't change the effect and import of a law passed by Congress simply by enacting a regulation to the contrary.

Or rather, they can try, but it won't hold water in a fair court of law.
Click to expand...

When Congress enacts legislation, they give the head of the applicable department of the Executive Branch the power to enact regulations enforcing the law. These regulations were published in the Federal Register and the public was given the opportunity to comment. Congress has given the Postmaster General broad authority to interpret the law.

The "official business" change was published in the Federal Register in, I believe, 2006.
 
When Congress enacts legislation, they give the head of the applicable department of the Executive Branch the power to enact regulations enforcing the law.
Click to expand...
Of course. But likewise, if the statute says "may," the head of the department can't enact regulations that say "may not." Isn't this self-evident?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top