Carrying in a PD

Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
679
Likes
51
Location
Townsend, Ma
Feedback: 5 / 0 / 0
I know we can't carry in federal building and schools, but what about pd's? These are considered federal that I know of. Thanks ahead of time.
 
I know we can't carry in federal building and schools, but what about pd's? These are considered federal that I know of. Thanks ahead of time.

There is no law against it but beware some PDs (like the Boston PD stations) have metal detectors/checkpoints in them. So as a practical matter the ones that are so equipped can say "You can't bring a gun in here because we said so". I doubt they'll offer to "check" your gun while visiting, either... at least most of the courthouses will do that!

Also, as HTRN said, the local PD is NOT a federal building.

-Mike
 
Not much of a story. Forgot it was in my pocket and had it confiscated and placed in a box with all the other knives. I didn't make a stink about it because I was going in there to pick up something far more valuable to me than the knife.
 
Anyone have the citation for no carry in federal building? I'm curious of the wording, consindering I'm a federal employee. Haha.
 
Anyone have the citation for no carry in federal building? I'm curious of the wording, consindering I'm a federal employee. Haha.

I've posted it here before, but if you go into any USPO and SEARCH for that obscure poster, write down both the USC (law) and CFR (regulation) to see what it says exactly. Hint: Wording on USPO poster is INTENTIONALLY misleading, but reports from Asst US Attorneys are that they have prosecuted (successfully) based on the misleading poster in a number of cases. NO, I do not have any cites, but the info came to me from LEOs in other states.
 
Anyone have the citation for no carry in federal building? I'm curious of the wording, consindering I'm a federal employee. Haha.

SEE: 18 USC 930

I've posted it here before, but if you go into any USPO and SEARCH for that obscure poster, write down both the USC (law) and CFR (regulation) to see what it says exactly. Hint: Wording on USPO poster is INTENTIONALLY misleading, but reports from Asst US Attorneys are that they have prosecuted (successfully) based on the misleading poster in a number of cases. NO, I do not have any cites, but the info came to me from LEOs in other states.

On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.
 
On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.

Nice to see this is moving along. I've seen a couple of the "successful" cases mentioned above, and they were both so far off point as to be absurd. (a postal employee who brought a gun into a secured "employees-only" area, and an idiot who got into an argument with security guards at the building housing the PO and then ignored their orders to leave).

Ken
 
i carry unless it's posted not to. most of them are behind glass anyway.

"hi, can i get some FA 10's?" [laugh]
 
I don't suppose Personal protection = other lawful purpose?

Not based on current case law...

United States v. Howard De La Cruz-Bancroft (2010) said:
The Court concludes that the plain language of § 930(d)(3) is clear. It provides that carrying a firearm in a Federal facility "incident to" hunting or other lawful purpose is lawful. Thus, by its express terms the statute demands inquiry into defendant's purpose in bringing the firearm to a Federal facility. In other words, the possession of the firearm must be not only lawful, but also must be for a lawful purpose that is related to the federal facility. Any other interpretation would fail to give full effect to every word in the statute. Quarles v. U.S. ex rel. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 372 F.3d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 2004) (court should "construe the words of the statute in their ordinary sense . . . giv[ing] effect, if possible, to every word of the statute."). Thus, the Court holds that § 930(d)(3) applies to the lawful possession of a weapon incident to hunting or to another lawful purpose related to the Federal facility in question.
 
SEE: 18 USC 930



On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.

The CFR is completely different from the USC that contains an exemption for carry incident to lawful purposes. The CFR is a regulation (with the force of the govt behind it, but a regulation enabled by law), whereas USC is "United States Code" (federal law).

Many of these cases seem to miss the point. In order to undermine 39 CFR 232.1, the plaintiff would first need to demonstrate that non-leo concealed carry is (a) a lawful purpose, and (b) buying postage is incidental to that lawful purpose. If this can be proven, and there is no semantic legerdemain, the only logical conclusion is that the "hidden" part of the postal poster (the subsection with the "incidental to lawful purposes" clause conveniently omitted) has meaning, and carry is not a violation of USC. Once it has been established that carry is not a violation of USC, it becomes a much smaller leap to prove that the CMR is inconsistent with USC and therefore not enforceable.

BUT, this is an area where one cannot count on the court ruling according to the federal law, but according to the outcome it feels is proper public policy.

The quoted case law is totally ambiguous. "Thus, the Court holds that § 930(d)(3) applies to the lawful possession of a weapon incident to hunting or to another lawful purpose related to the Federal facility in question." could mean that something like "hunting" counts, but "protection" does not. Conversely, it could also mean that since protection is a lawful reason to carry a firearm, it is covered by the law. In other words, ambiguity was replaced with imprecision.
 
Last edited:
In RI civilians cannot carry while at the State House, but law makers can carry. You have to go through a metal detector, and if you carry you will have to check your firearm with the State Police. A couple of months ago, there was talk about extending the ban to lawmakers as well, but I don't know if anything happened. There is no statute that prevent anyone with a CCW permit to carry in the State House, and there was no talk about making any legislative changes either... I am wondering under what authority the RI State Police can prevent you from carrying while in the State House... After all, the State House belongs to the people of RI..
http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2011/09/state-officials-meet-privately.html
 
Last time I went in to get finger printed the cop un-holstered his and put it in a lock box as we were going into the booking room. I then asked (being a smart ass, I knew him since I'm an ACO in town) I asked if he wanted mine too. His response: "Nah, it's OK", I laughed.

Basically, don't ask-don't tell.
 
Not much of a story. Forgot it was in my pocket and had it confiscated and placed in a box with all the other knives. I didn't make a stink about it because I was going in there to pick up something far more valuable to me than the knife.
That's funny. I had a student tell me that the BPD checked his gun while he was in there to submit his renewal application.
 
I have done it. I saw the detector a soon as I walke in. I tried to flag on of the dispachers Over so I could be a little discreet about it, he just repeated can I help you. Then I had no choice to say
From across the lobby.. " I have a LTC and I have it with me... Them he came over and checked my card and said I was all set. I walked through the detector, it beeped, and I went and took care of what I had to and left.
 
SEE: 18 USC 930



On a related note, Plaintiff's amended complaint and Defendant's MTD in Bonidy v. USPS, which challenges the USPS firearm prohibition (39 CFR 232.1(l)), is scheduled to be heard Friday in US District Court.
Nice job following an interesting case. Also from Colorado this week we have on Thursday oral arguments in Gray Peterson's 10th Circuit appeal.
 
...The quoted case law is totally ambiguous...

Sorry, I thought I had posted a link to the decision.

The court indicated that the otherwise lawful carrying of a firearm (presumably for protection), is likely insufficient to trigger the exemption...

Defendant argues that § 930(d)(3) permits carrying a firearm into any Federal facility if one was carrying firearm lawfully outside of the Federal facility. However, this interpretation of the exception in § 930(d)(3) suffers from several defects. First, it does not give full effect to the entire statute, which requires a lawful purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. If mere lawful possession of the weapon outside the facility were enough, then there would be no need for the phrase “hunting or other lawful purposes.” Thus, the Court concludes that in accordance with the statute, the factfinder should determine Defendant’s purpose in bringing the firearm into the Federal facility. Second, Defendant’s interpretation of § 930(d)(3) would largely swallow the prohibition set forth in § 930(a) generally prohibiting firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities. If mere lawful possession of the firearm outside the Federal facility were enough to permit someone to bring it inside, virtually anyone could bring such a weapon inside a Federal facility for any reason, particularly in a state like New Mexico which liberally permits individuals to carry unconcealed firearms. Finally, Defendant’s interpretation would result in inconsistent results. As the parties have pointed out, state laws regarding possessing and carrying weapons in public vary considerably. Some states, like New Mexico, permit citizens to carry unconcealed firearms in public without a license, while others have more restrictive laws. Thus, under Defendant’s interpretation of the statute, his act of bringing an unconcealed weapon into a Federal facility would not be unlawful in New Mexico, but would constitute a crime in some other states. There is no indication that Congress intended such an uneven result when it enacted this law to protect those who work and conduct business in Federal facilities.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record regarding defendant’s purpose in bringing the firearm to the Federal facility at 500 Gold on February 27, 2008. As stated above, the statute requires that the purpose be lawful, and that it relate to the Federal facility in some way. At the December 17, 2009 hearing, defendant’s counsel suggested that many Americans carry firearms for personal security and self-defense, a purpose that is embraced by Article 2, section 6 of the New Mexico constitution, which authorizes carrying unconcealed firearms in this State. However, from the record it appears that there has been no fact finding as to what the defendant’s actual purpose was in bringing the firearm to the Federal facility, whether that purpose was lawful, or whether it related to the Federal facility as required by § 930(d)(3).

http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?unique-identifier=0002786449-0000000000
 
The court indicated that the otherwise lawful carrying of a firearm (presumably for protection), is likely insufficient to trigger the exemption...

Yup, and they will no doubt move the definition every time proof is offered. Consider an FFL who ships handguns, or picks them up from his PO box (legal for FFLs as long as form 1508 is filled out). Such an FFL could argue that carry of a defensive handgun was directly related to the lawful purpose of protection while using postal services to transport merchandise of a valuable and sensitive nature. Ditto for anyone using registered mail to ship high value items like bullion.
 
I've posted it here before, but if you go into any USPO and SEARCH for that obscure poster, write down both the USC (law) and CFR (regulation) to see what it says exactly. Hint: Wording on USPO poster is INTENTIONALLY misleading, but reports from Asst US Attorneys are that they have prosecuted (successfully) based on the misleading poster in a number of cases. NO, I do not have any cites, but the info came to me from LEOs in other states.


My post office has no notice about guns. I looked twice.

Neither does my PD. I've carried there multiple times picking up FA-10's.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom