This is my understanding as well. The way I generally present it is::Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:47 pmPlainly the Federally owned or leased building is prohibited... my understanding is the parking lot of a dedicated federal facility is prohibited... but could only speculate about a shared facility. I would think only the federally owned or leased portion would be affected, but that would be a matter for the lawyers.carlson1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:15 pmThank you my friend. I am always confused about the Post Office. Can I even go to my dentist that is in the same store front location, etc?Paladin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:07 pm 30.06/07 does not apply to federal facilities as it is part of Texas law. Federal law is something else entirely:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930....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
....The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
There is some room under (d)(3) that suggests that "incident to ... lawful purposes" is ok, so I think this battle can be won nationwide if the courts are reasonable.
1. If it's a stand-alone Post Office, then firearms are prohibited, even in the parking lot, inside your own vehicle.
2. If the Post Office is within a strip mall or a leased building within an otherwise public place, intermingled with other publicly accessible buildings, then ONLY the Post Office is prohibited.
Tom Grieve posted a video on this recently. In his closing comments, he brought up a very important point ((almost as an afterthought; I wish this would have had been front & center...)).
This was a Federal District Court ((a trial court; NOT a District Court of Appeals)). As such, it ONLY applies to this specific case. It may establish 'persuasive precedence ', meaning that it could be referenced & influence a future courts decision. But it falls way short of a binding precedent that would be case law applying to the entire District under that court. As such, the federal code is still in effect, & any articles or YouTube pontification implying that it's been overturned is a stretch.