Post Office Ban in Parking Lots Unconstitutional

[Pecos]

Mr. Cotton:
Whats the deal is it not legal today to bring you conceal hand gun in the post office parking lot? There is a lot of confusion here. Thanks.

[jmorris]

Federal law defines premise same as Texas so it's only illegal in post office parking lots.

You sure? Parking lots are not part of the premises.

IANAL, but Title 18, United States Code, Section 930, (g): As used in this section: (1) 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.

39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 and does NOT so define premise.

[Jason K]

Considering the vast amount of Federal laws in existence, ALL of us are likely criminals anyway....

I've never grasped why some folks will park across the street and walk to a post office to avoid this.

It's quite simple really- it's the law. I don't like it but by ignoring it, I would be no better than the common criminals that we always claim to be better than.

[suthdj]

Remember, it is only illegal if you get caught, right.

[flechero]

Considering the vast amount of Federal laws in existence, ALL of us are likely criminals anyway....

I've never grasped why some folks will park across the street and walk to a post office to avoid this.

It's quite simple really- it's the law. I don't like it but by ignoring it, I would be no better than the common criminals that we always claim to be better than.

Probably true- I should written "knowingly ignoring the law"

[chasfm11]

Considering the vast amount of Federal laws in existence, ALL of us are likely criminals anyway....

I've never grasped why some folks will park across the street and walk to a post office to avoid this.

It's quite simple really- it's the law. I don't like it but by ignoring it, I would be no better than the common criminals that we always claim to be better than.

Probably true- I should written "knowingly ignoring the law"

But here is the problem: outside of places like this forum where these types of topics are discussed, how many others really understand these nuances in the law? While I understand that it is our responsibility as citizens to know and comply with the laws, it is not easy to do. I doubt if all of the roughly 600.000 CHLs in Texas grasp the "parking lot connection" and our course length is a lot more than some other States. How about the States where there is no license required?

For me it is a lot less about "knowingly ignoring the law" and a lot closer to "seemingly impossible to figure out the law."

[SA-TX]

I am surprised that the biggest bombshell of this decision hasn't been mentioned (I apologize in advance if it has been and I missed it): open carry is protected behavior under the 2nd Amendment (and due to Circuit precedent, concealed carry is not). If this is sustained, this could have a positive impact in TX and other states that generally prohibit it. While the decision speaks of firearms generally, it is clear that he wanted to carry a handgun.

Accordingly, the court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety.

I know that one or more Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that open carry, where legal, can't be used as the RAS for a detainment, but I'm not aware of a federal court decision explicitly stating that open carry of firearms is protected behavior under the Second Amendment.

SA-TX

[jmra]

Some of you maybe reading more into this decision than what is there.
This is the decision:
"ORDERED, that the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner"
I'm not sure that means we can all legally leave our guns in the car at the post office. What it may mean is the USPS issues the plaintiff a permit/written authorization that fulfills the order (this option is actually mentioned in the decision).
Will be watching to see how this plays out and how the USPS accomplishes "such action as is necessary".