Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

joe817
Senior Member
Posts: 8140
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Location: Arlington

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby joe817 » Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:53 pm

Steve, your comments are deeply appreciated. In the past 5 years that I've been a member of this forum, you have given us a most unique perspective opinion & insight to the somewhat ambiguous interpretations of 'the law'. For that, I thank you.
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16589
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:34 pm

The Post Office suit was lost in the 10th Circuit. The PO can ban firearms both in the buildings and parking lots. TAB BONIDY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, Plaintiffs - Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; PATRICK DO-NAHOE, Postmaster General; MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colo-rado, Defendants - Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391

Chas.
Image

User avatar

jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby jimlongley » Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:51 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Post Office suit was lost in the 10th Circuit. The PO can ban firearms both in the buildings and parking lots. TAB BONIDY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, Plaintiffs - Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; PATRICK DO-NAHOE, Postmaster General; MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colo-rado, Defendants - Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391

Chas.


:banghead:
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365


bigity
Senior Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:38 am
Location: Lubbock, TX

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby bigity » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:42 am

Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.
USAF Veteran|Ex-DoD Contractor|Information Technology
EDC: Springfield Armory XD Sub-Compact 40S&W 3"


MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts: 1867
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby MeMelYup » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:05 pm

bigity wrote:Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

USPS and FEDEX are gun free zones with the posting of 30.06 signs at most locations.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6832
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby RoyGBiv » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:11 pm

If you want to read the 46 page decision, here's the link
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-conte ... 3-1374.pdf

:roll:
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby mr1337 » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:29 pm

Well, looks like I'm sticking with UPS for the foreseeable future.
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby C-dub » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:50 pm

I guess this won't be going any further unless another district says it is unconstitutional, right?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

User avatar

suthdj
Senior Member
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: North Ft Worth(Alliance area)

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby suthdj » Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:06 pm

bigity wrote:Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

They will also come to your house to get packages so you don't have to go to the post office.
21-Apr-09 filed online
05-Sep-09 Plastic Arrived
09-Sep-13 Plastic Arrived

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16589
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:22 am

Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby ScottDLS » Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:49 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.


18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16589
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:34 am

ScottDLS wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.


18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).


Correct. The problem is that Texas, for CHL eligibility purposes, will consider it a Class B misdemeanor since jail time is a possible penalty. This will cost a CHL their license for 5 to 7 years.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby ScottDLS » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:45 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.


18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).


Correct. The problem is that Texas, for CHL eligibility purposes, will consider it a Class B misdemeanor since jail time is a possible penalty. This will cost a CHL their license for 5 to 7 years.

Chas.



I wonder if, in order to get a conviction under the controlling statute for the CFR, there would have to be notice requirements. There ARE explicitly in 18 USC 930, as there should be, since it's a felony. As a practical matter it is low on my list of concerns, since I've yet to hear of marauding AUSA's prosecuting $50 tickets.

Driving through GFSZA zones w/o a CHL, or outside of Texas, or by off duty out of state LEO, is much more concerning.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Tracker
Senior Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby Tracker » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:06 pm

In light of Scalia's "sensitive places such as..." in Heller I'd like to know why just because something is federal that automatically qualifies it as a "sensitive place." Where's the armed guard? Not being a lawyer but.... it seems to me if the post office is sensitive the federal government should have to qualify why it is if the fed is going to infringe on my right when getting my mail.

Heller v D.C., Scalia: " Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."


The Wall
Senior Member
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:59 am

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Postby The Wall » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:14 pm

MeMelYup wrote:
bigity wrote:Well, guess I have another reason to just use another shipping company when I have to ship items. You'd figure the USPS would be begging people to come in and spend money, guns or no.

USPS and FEDEX are gun free zones with the posting of 30.06 signs at most locations.

Funny Fedex would be a gun free zone when that's where I take my guns when I want to ship them out for repairs. It was about three years ago the last time I shipped a gun and don't remember any signs. Maybe it's changed since then.


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 27 guests