Breaking News, Senate Signs Off On Guns On Post Office Grounds

This is certainly a step in the right direction, but the journey ahead is still long, and fraught with pitfalls. Keep the pressure on.

And here I thought it only applied to the buildings *blush*. It never occurred to me otherwise.

One time I was intending to go down the the local MBE to send something UPS and found they were out of business. So I made an unplanned trip to another carrier without even mentally taking into account whether I was in "Arizona Mode". My backup weapon at the time was an 11" Frank Beltrame automatic stiletto. My acoutrement did not even cross my mind until I had walked out of the building.

Of course the other carrier was FedEx or something else "Fed"-related . . .

Mike

FedEx or something else "Fed"-related . . .

Click to expand...

See this -

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_FedEx_a_government_entity

Federal express is a private entity and laws related to the USPS and "federal property" do not apply.

They set whatever rules they want for "public with CCW" access to their buildings, which probably vary from state to state.

In Washington State, I have not seen signs prohibiting concealed carry in either UPS or FedEx offices. That doesn't mean that either's management supports the concept, just that neither has exercised their private property rights and restricted this.

Look what happened with Starbucks. Sometimes everything is fine until someone shines a light on it and then the business is put in the awkward position of trying to determine which group of customers they want to alienate.

As stated already, there is a long way to go before personal protection is recognized as a civil right.

Interesting, I thought it was already the law:

18 USC 930, subsection D:

(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.

Click to expand...

Devonai said:

Interesting, I thought it was already the law:

18 USC 930, subsection D:

(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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Interesting... I have always thought it was illegal to bring a firearm into a post office. But, assuming that self defense is a 'lawful purpose', it looks like that is incorrect. Can any of the legal-folk here comment on this?

Well, I think I answered my own question...

39 CFR 232.1 - CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY states the following:

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the term 'official purposes' used in 39 CFR 232.1 would certainly be more restrictive than the 'other lawful purposes' referenced in 18 USC 930.

I'm curious though... is there an accepted definition of 'official purposes' published anywhere? I would assume that LEO's actively participating in an investigation would qualify. But, what about while off duty? Or LEO's on duty but not actively 'working'?

Regardless, if the Begich amendment allows a person to stow their firearm in their car while they run in to the post office to check their mail, that appears to be an improvement. Of course, it doesn't exactly help those that happen to be carrying while riding a motorcycle (or riding a bicycle, or even walking/jogging) and want/need to do the same thing.

Besides this apparent disparity, does anybody see any down side?

Gee, would have thought the law was to let cc IN the post office...
But when your as mismanaged and debt ridden as the post office you do anything in your power NOT to bring customers through the door.

When you read paragraph 3, unless I missed something, it explicitly does NOT apply to CCW in a federal facility(excluding courts); that is, if lawful carrying .... other lawful purpose is inclusive of lawful CCW.

Just the same, I'm not going to be the test case

18 USC 930, subsection D:

Quote:
(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.

Click to expand...

With respect to the parking lot, it appears that it has to be posted, this would be exactly the same requirement for Federal property that is to be off limits.

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to—

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

Click to expand...

The parking areas of my post office are not posted.
Going inside the local post office, you have to go in and as you walk toward the counter windows, you need to turn around and look back toward the door to see the sign which is inside a glass wall case that has a sign that must be 4x6 at the most. There are a bunch of other letter sized documents in there, so it's sort of camouflaged. I wouldn't call that conspicuous. I don't understand why they don't post on the door or on the outside near the door.

wildbilll said:

With respect to the parking lot, it appears that it has to be posted, this would be exactly the same requirement for Federal property that is to be off limits.

The parking areas of my post office are not posted.
Going inside the local post office, you have to go in and as you walk toward the counter windows, you need to turn around and look back toward the door to see the sign which is inside a glass wall case that has a sign that must be 4x6 at the most. There are a bunch of other letter sized documents in there, so it's sort of camouflaged. I wouldn't call that conspicuous. I don't understand why they don't post on the door or on the outside near the door.

Click to expand...

There is no law, generally, related to 'federal property' the law specifies Federal Facilities, which is defined as

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.

Click to expand...

However there are several Regulations that may apply to 'property': Post Office, VA, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.

You will also note the 18 USC 930 has this verbiage:

no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Click to expand...

Whereas no such language is contained 39 CFR 232.1

In any case 18 USC 930 does not apply to conduct on post office property: 39 USC 410.

Oh, and BTW, it's is also illegal (same penalty) for bringing your dog/cat/other pet onto post office property.