TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Obviously federal law does not care at all about anything, even the second amendment. Prohibiting carry in post offices is infringement in direct violation of the 2A.

You were the one that brought up the "lawful purposes" clause of 18 USC 930 (d).

I did bring it up, it is an infringement, the feds are notorious for violating the second amendment even though the second as it stands is not incorporated to apply to the states, and I am not following your point on this post and the eyeroll. It must be an inside thing?

Anygunanywhere

I agree that carry should not be banned in the post office and that the federal government has overstepped their bounds, but talking about "how things should be" really doesn't answer the question in the original post as to whether it is legal to carry in the post office. You can say "the 2nd Amendment does this" or the "2nd Amendment does that" all day long but until the federal courts rule that the law banning carry is unconstitutional or Congress changes the law, it's really a moot point in the discussion as to whether someone will get arrested or not.

CleverNickname wrote:
I agree that carry should not be banned in the post office and that the federal government has overstepped their bounds, but talking about "how things should be" really doesn't answer the question in the original post as to whether it is legal to carry in the post office. You can say "the 2nd Amendment does this" or the "2nd Amendment does that" all day long but until the federal courts rule that the law banning carry is unconstitutional or Congress changes the law, it's really a moot point in the discussion as to whether someone will get arrested or not.

Did you actually read all of the posts or did you just decide to critique my second amendment infringement assertions? I answered the original post with what I hold as fact. I did not review all of my posts on this thread but in no way are all of them based solely on 2A infringement.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:
I agree that carry should not be banned in the post office and that the federal government has overstepped their bounds, but talking about "how things should be" really doesn't answer the question in the original post as to whether it is legal to carry in the post office. You can say "the 2nd Amendment does this" or the "2nd Amendment does that" all day long but until the federal courts rule that the law banning carry is unconstitutional or Congress changes the law, it's really a moot point in the discussion as to whether someone will get arrested or not.

Did you actually read all of the posts or did you just decide to critique my second amendment infringement assertions? I answered the original post with what I hold as fact. I did not review all of my posts on this thread but in no way are all of them based solely on 2A infringement.

Anygunanywhere

Just because you hold it as fact, does not make it fact.

Right2Carry wrote:
Just because you hold it as fact, does not make it fact.

You really know how to throw up a convincing response. Keep up those salient posts and you just might convert me.

NOT.

The facts are that you decide not to carry because the rules are vague at best and you do not want to be the test case because you have a fear of being discovered if you concealed (key word here) carry. Nowhere on this thread or any forum I have viewed is there any example of anyone ever being prosecuted for carrying in a post office. I have not done any in-depth searches on the subject but since it is not my side of the argument I really don't care.

Then there is the post where a postmaster agreed with me.

Since you have not posted any substantiating evidence it is obvious to me that your posts are just opinions supporting your actions.

Regards,

Anygunanywhere

Not to throw a monkey in the wrench here, but I feel compelled to chime in on this very auspicious and long standing topic...

And I see both sides of this issue as equally relevant...

The day I truly feel it is necessary to make sure I carry (concealed for now) in a post office because of a trend in criminal exploitation or activity within those hallowed halls...

I would venture to say we have bigger problems than dissagreeing about the validity of the USC and its restrictions on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms...

I know no one wants to be a test case, and I also know as per the USC (dispite some interesting parts, like section "D" if I recall correctly) its not a good idea to do so, because then it becomes a federal case against you if they somehow find out...ahem...You know what I mean...

Ironically, the only times I believe we have been to the PO in the last ten plus years or so, has been to send off our renewal packets to Austin, and to Utah as a certified, return receipt requested parcels...Just to make sure...

anygunanywhere wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:
Just because you hold it as fact, does not make it fact.

You really know how to throw up a convincing response. Keep up those salient posts and you just might convert me.

NOT.

The facts are that you decide not to carry because the rules are vague at best and you do not want to be the test case because you have a fear of being discovered if you concealed (key word here) carry. Nowhere on this thread or any forum I have viewed is there any example of anyone ever being prosecuted for carrying in a post office. I have not done any in-depth searches on the subject but since it is not my side of the argument I really don't care.

Then there is the post where a postmaster agreed with me.

Since you have not posted any substantiating evidence it is obvious to me that your posts are just opinions supporting your actions.

Regards,

Anygunanywhere

So just because no one has been prosecuted for post office carry you think your opinion is fact? If you want to carry in a post office that is your business, but I have a problem with you telling others that it is legal and presenting your opinion as fact in that matter.

Your rationale about post office carry is nothing more than an opinion. You do not have any facts that support that post office carry is legal. Someone else used the opinion of a post master of a small town. The post master said he THOUGHT it would be fine, he didn't say it was legal according to the poster. The FACT of the matter that there has been more evidence presented in this thread pointing to post office carry being illegal rather than legal.

It seems your whole argument revolves around not getting caught, a postmaster who THINKS it would be fine, and section 18, yet ignoring CFR 39. I have posted several links to articles suggesting post office carry is illegal, you have posted nothing to support your opinion, except your own interpretation of the matter. Since you are stating your opinion as fact the burden falls to you to PROVE that post office carry is legal.

waffenmacht wrote:I have posted on my experience here before. I did chat with the postmaster of Palmer, Tx... yeah I know, small town, but he has over 20 years experience. Apparently, this issue has never been brought to him, in any of his previous training. First of all, we know some firearms can be carried into a post office. That is a fact! The post office has written procedures which allow a civilian to carry a concealed firearm into the building. Such as someone shipping a shotgun, or rifle. Thats a firearm, being carried into a post office, concealed in a box. Also, cops can carry there. Im sure that's not disputed. The question really is, does my CHL apply there? Well, the postmaster I talked with thought it would be fine because i was "licenced". He was funny when he said " If you are carrying concealed, how would I know"?
-The truth is, until this gets tested in a court of law, this old dead horse will continue to recieve blows, and well I just got another kick in.
-Bruce

Key word being "THOUGHT". Doesn't exactly sound like a legal endorsement to me.

stevie_d_64 wrote:
The day I truly feel it is necessary to make sure I carry (concealed for now) in a post office...

"If i knew I would need it, I wouldn't go there..."

DoubleJ wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:
The day I truly feel it is necessary to make sure I carry (concealed for now) in a post office...

"If i knew I would need it, I wouldn't go there..."

And you never know when you are going to need it.

I'm done. Five pages of this are enough. Put this in with the open carry threads.

Anygunanywhere

This thread was beaten to death many times on the old Packing.org.

You either believe the 'lawful purposes' exemption or you don't.

I choose to believe it and base my decision accordingly.

I never carry in a post office. It would be too tempting....

Paperhood wrote:During my brief stint as a "civilian" I worked for the US Postal Service. Federal Laws do apply.

Paperhood, your statement proved nothing.

Anygunanywhere[/quote]

Sorry, what was it supposed to prove? It was simply a statement. Pretty much like everything else in this thread.

anygunanywhere wrote:
I'm done. Five pages of this are enough. Put this in with the open carry threads.

Anygunanywhere

Anygunanywhere

As a retired postal employee, I can guarantee you that if you carry a weapon, CHL or not, into a post office facility, you are breaking Federal law and can go to prison. Ask any Postal Inspector. Their phone number is in the book.

XDFan43 wrote:As a retired postal employee, I can guarantee you that if you carry a weapon, CHL or not, into a post office facility, you are breaking Federal law and can go to prison. Ask any Postal Inspector. Their phone number is in the book.

As a current federal employee with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I can guarantee you that most federal officials --even the LEOs-- are woefully misinformed about the laws. We are a law enforcement agency, and every employee has arrest authority.

At the entrance to every BOP parking lot is a big sign warning of the dire consequences of bringing contraband or prohibited items onto the institution grounds. These signs specifically mention firearms, and warn of 10 years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. They even cite USC and CFR.

They also lie. Neither the USC nor CFR prohibits bringing a firearm onto the grounds. Buildings are covered under the same 18 USC 930 (d) that everyone is familiar with, and its controversial "lawful purposes" phrase, but the grounds and parking lots are not. The law they cite makes it an offense to provide or attempt to provide contraband to an inmate, and our inmates are inside the fence, thanks.

They have a policy against firearms on the grounds, but no law or Rule supporting it. They proposed a CFR in 2006 to codify that policy, then withdrew it after a slew of negative comments.

Just because an inspector, investigator, or other LEO tells you something is against the law, doesn't make it so.