Post Office Visit / What To Do With Your Handgun?

[Keith B]

It is 18 USC Sec. 930. Here is a link to the code LINK

(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.

(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.

1) It seems to only cover inside the facility. Parking lot is OK.
2) When inside, it does not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms. CHL is lawful carry, FFL mailing out handgun is lawful carry, etc.

Here is a very good example of this. Apparently 18.930 does not apply to post offices, but there are other issues at stake. This is written by Ken Hanson, Esq., Litigation Chair, Office of General Counsel of the Ohioans For Concealed Carry group. It pretty well says steer clear of the post office. Here is the LINK

[Renegade]

1) It seems to only cover inside the facility. Parking lot is OK.
2) When inside, it does not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms. CHL is lawful carry, FFL mailing out handgun is lawful carry, etc.

'Cept for that's not the only applicable regulation. The postal code adds:

(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.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 32_03.html

So according to the law I posted LEOs and CHLs can carry in a Post Office. According to to the CFR you posted, neither can. But wait, look what I found:

(2) 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.

[Renegade]

It is 18 USC Sec. 930. Here is a link to the code LINK

(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.

(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.

1) It seems to only cover inside the facility. Parking lot is OK.
2) When inside, it does not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms. CHL is lawful carry, FFL mailing out handgun is lawful carry, etc.

Here is a very good example of this. Apparently 18.930 does not apply to post offices, but there are other issues at stake. This is written by Ken Hanson, Esq., Litigation Chair, Office of General Counsel of the Ohioans For Concealed Carry group. It pretty well says steer clear of the post office. Here is the LINK

From what I could tell, that was relevant to Ohio Law, and the violation as under Ohio Law. Since we have 30.06, that notice of prohibition does not trigger a Texas law violation.

Good link though, he covered several of my points.

[Keith B]

From what I could tell, that was relevant to Ohio Law, and the violation as under Ohio Law. Since we have 30.06, that notice of prohibition does not trigger a Texas law violation.

Good link though, he covered several of my points.

There are so many varying points that I think this is one that is going to have to be a test case. However, I am not willing to voluntarily become the defendant!

[Renegade]

From what I could tell, that was relevant to Ohio Law, and the violation as under Ohio Law. Since we have 30.06, that notice of prohibition does not trigger a Texas law violation.

Good link though, he covered several of my points.

There are so many varying points that I think this is one that is going to have to be a test case. However, I am not willing to voluntarily become the defendant!

I agree, I cannot find anything specific.

[Xander]

1) It seems to only cover inside the facility. Parking lot is OK.
2) When inside, it does not apply to the lawful carrying of firearms. CHL is lawful carry, FFL mailing out handgun is lawful carry, etc.

'Cept for that's not the only applicable regulation. The postal code adds:

(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.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 32_03.html

So according to the law I posted LEOs and CHLs can carry in a Post Office. According to to the CFR you posted, neither can. But wait, look what I found:

(2) 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.

Which, of course, means that the more restrictive of the applicable regulations apply.

[Renegade]

Which, of course, means that the more restrictive of
the applicable regulations apply.

That is not my understanding of the definition of "abrogate" or how it is used in that sentence. I would find it hard to believe LEOs cannot legally carry in a Post Office.

[Xander]

Which, of course, means that the more restrictive of
the applicable regulations apply.

That is not my understanding of the definition of "abrogate" or how it is used in that sentence. I would find it hard to believe LEOs cannot legally carry in a Post Office.

Well, others have certainly held that opinion as well. Charles gave an analysis of it here: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... t=abrogate

In my personal opinion, although I think it's a subject worthy of discussion, I don't think it's worth spending *too* much time trying to nail down, which really probably isn't possible anyway since it doesn't seem to have ever been tested, positively or negatively. As Jim noted...There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they've ever tried to enforce it, and the postal inspectors probably have enough real work to do that it's not likely to be an issue as long as the issue isn't forced by someone.

My personal opinion as to whether one could prove in court that he*wasn't* breaking the law by carrying on post office property, should he be arrested by a postal inspector for that crime....I would be prepared for the results to be similar to the cases where folks try to prove in court that federal income tax isn't legal and that the IRS has no right to collect it. They have a nasty tendency to end up in prison for tax evasion.

That is, of course, only my own opinion, and IANAL.

[Xander]

Just another quick thought that I wanted to mention.

One of the tenants of the argument that CHLs may be permitted to carry in a post office is the fairly ambiguous

"the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

language.

When you attempt to divine the intentions of ambiguous code, one place you can look for assistance is similar code. In this case, if the legislature intended to exempt CHLs from the prohibition against carrying firearms, how would they do it? Would they use the "other lawful purposes" language? We need to find statues where we *know* CHLs are being exempted, either by language or case law and see how they're written in comparison.

Well, we can see an example of how they exempt permit holders in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii), gun-free zones around schools.

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

It is my belief that if the authors of 18 U.S.C. § 930(d) wanted or intended to exempt CHL and other permit holders from the prohibition on firearms, they would have included the same language (or at least specific language in a similar vein) that we find in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).

[frankie_the_yankee]

It is my belief that if the authors of 18 U.S.C. § 930(d) wanted or intended to exempt CHL and other permit holders from the prohibition on firearms, they would have included the same language (or at least specific language in a similar vein) that we find in 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).

I don't know. The "other lawful purposes" phrase is pretty broad. It could be that it is intentionally so. The wording in the gun free school zone act is drawn more narrowly. For instance, it does not cover people with CHL's that are outside of their home states, even though the state they are in has reciprocity with their home state.

I think that when faced with a broadly worded statute or regulation such as 18 U.S.C. § 930, the courts tend to interpret it broadly. That is, in favor of the actor.

That said, I think carry in a post office is subject to a conflicting maze of laws and regulations. I wouldn't attempt to figure out what constitutes the "correct" interpretation.

And I'll bet that for the same reason(s), most US Attorneys will steer clear of it as well, unless the alleged "violation" is committed by some egregiously bad actor and they want to throw the book at him.

That's why you don't hear of any peaceable CHL's getting busted and doing time at Club Fed for violating one of the arcane rules when they might happen to visit the post office.

[Renegade]

Which, of course, means that the more restrictive of
the applicable regulations apply.

That is not my understanding of the definition of "abrogate" or how it is used in that sentence. I would find it hard to believe LEOs cannot legally carry in a Post Office.

Well, others have certainly held that opinion as well. Charles gave an analysis of it here: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... t=abrogate

Thanks, at this point I cannot even find anything that allows Texas Peace Officers to to carry in a PO. I do not think the CFR was written with CHLS in mind, and has not yet been updated to address the issue clearly. I had heard they were going to address it, but so far I have not seen anything yet.

[txinvestigator]

HYPOTHETICALLY: The only way anyone would know if I am carrying in a post office would be if I had to use the handgun to defend myself in a violent and encounter. Should I survive that and the Texas GJ hearing, I would gladly worry about this seemingly confusing federal issue then. ;)

[Bill]

HYPOTHETICALLY: The only way anyone would know if I am carrying in a post office would be if I had to use the handgun to defend myself in a violent and encounter. Should I survive that and the Texas GJ hearing, I would gladly worry about this seemingly confusing federal issue then. ;)

I am in agreement, Knowing some of the postal shootings in the past it might be one of those places I might risk carrying.

[5111]

You don't need to remove your holster. Just unholster and walk in. There's nothing illegal about wearing an empty holster in a Post Office.

That's what I do.

[Xander]

Thanks, at this point I cannot even find anything that allows Texas Peace Officers to to carry in a PO. I do not think the CFR was written with CHLS in mind, and has not yet been updated to address the issue clearly. I had heard they were going to address it, but so far I have not seen anything yet.

That would be nice, for sure! 'Specially if they address it with language favorable to us.