Concealed Carry in a Post Ofiice

[Rusty Barrels]

I've read a lot of disagreeing opinions about whether it's legal to carry in a PO. I've also read the law and as I remember it basically said "It is illegal to carry in a PO unless you are licensed to by your state to do so and you have no intention of commiting a crime." Well, I work for the USPS and I KNOW I can't bring any weapons to work but we had a customer who asked if HE could. Someone asked a local police officer and he said it was perfectly legal but I wanted a definitive answer so I called my union to see what they could find out. They called the postal inspectors in Boston who transfered them to some hot-shot, head-honcho inspector who confirmed that I can't carry and he said "There is no circumstance where a civilian, even with a LTC, can legally carry in a PO and we don't take this sort of thing lightly." WOW! We're dealing with a nervous beauracracy here! My question to you is, do you think I really did get a definitive answer or was it just this head-honcho guy in DC making his own law? I've come to a point where I don't really trust anybody when it comes to laws surrounding firearms unless I find it written conclusively by an authoritative source. I don't like how the authority contradicted my understanding of the law as it is written. Can anyone point me to the truth?

 

[truthprotector]

If you ever find the answer, i'd like to know......

 

[Twigg]

There is a big sign in my local post office, a revolver with the circle/slash (International "Prohibited" symbol.) and the words NO GUNS.

I leave mine in a lockbox in the truck whan I go in.

I don't need any problems.

 

[dwarven1]

Why don't you ask the "hotshot" to show it to you in writing - because I think he's writing his own laws there.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The section in the law immediately after the posted section refers to carry incidental to lawful purposes - which is subject to various interpretations by different individuals. Just remember, only one side gets to expense its legal fees to the taxpayers. Although the "plain English" reading of "incidental to lawful purposes" would seem to cover lawful carry, it's possible that the system could interpret this to refer to a hunter walking on postal land or some other such obscure "incidental to lawful purposes" case.

 

[RKG]

If the question is: does simple carrying, lawfully under state law, satisfy the exception in 18 U.S.C. sec. 930(d)(3), the case of United States v. Murray, 271 F.3d 349 (D. Me. 2001), says (without explanation) that the answer is "No."

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm convinced that regardless of what the law is . . . if you ask "someone" you have a 99.999% chance of getting a "no" answer anyway. People's prejudices show up more often than not when asked questions like that.

[e.g. I was once threatened with arrest for trespassing at the Framingham USPO by a very irate postal worker for driving thru the rear driveway (off Rte. 126) and around to the front to pick up my Mail at a PO Box that I had there for >10 years. The sign says something like "no trespassing, official business only". Large companies daily use the rear entrance/docks to drop off and pickup mailbags. I was there on official business, but who was right? I honestly don't know . . . the guy just went into a rant, I apologized and we both went on our way. Someday maybe I'll ask my local Postmaster (very friendly) just for the heck of it, but I'd actually forgotten about this until reading this thread. My guess is that all of these types of questions/signs are subject to "interpretation" and different people (including judges) will interpret it differently!]

 

[ScottS]

I'm convinced that regardless of what the law is . . . if you ask "someone" you have a 99.999% chance of getting a "no" answer anyway. People's prejudices show up more often than not when asked questions like that.

In my experience, this is the only statement in any thread you'll ever read about PO carry that is 100%, every single time, accurate.

 

[Chuck]

A related question, an off-duty cop (didn't get what city) and I were talking in a gun store recently when CCW came up. I had just run over to the ATM for some cash and he "wanted to let me know" I couldn't carry in a bank. Searching the MGL's didn't turn up anything on that topic -- did I miss something in my CCW education?

-= chuck

 

[OnTheRoad]

Searching the MGL's didn't turn up anything on that topic -- did I miss something in my CCW education?

No, but he may have.

 

[Scrivener]

A related question, an off-duty cop (didn't get what city) and I were talking in a gun store recently when CCW came up. I had just run over to the ATM for some cash and he "wanted to let me know" I couldn't carry in a bank. Searching the MGL's didn't turn up anything on that topic -- did I miss something in my CCW education?

-= chuck

Yes: Don't take legal advice from cops, dispatchers and gun store "experts."

While the bank may certainly post its property, there is nothing illegal about carrying in a bank.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Chuck, you were smart to go check for yourself.

No such "law" in MA.

 

[Pilgrim]

note subsection (d) (3)

 

[codenamepaul]

Seems to me that 'other lawful purposes' would cover legal CCW especially since hunting is mentioned separately. If there is no metal detector, I'm carrying anyway.

 

[RKG]

Seems to me that 'other lawful purposes' would cover legal CCW especially since hunting is mentioned separately. If there is no metal detector, I'm carrying anyway.

See my post above. The only decided case I could find holds that simple carrying because you are licensed by the state to do so does not qualify for the "other lawful purposes" exception.

 

[ScottS]

See my post above. The only decided case I could find holds that simple carrying because you are licensed by the state to do so does not qualify for the "other lawful purposes" exception.

Do you have a link to US v Murray, cited above? I must be a spaz, because I can usually find this stuff, but my search foo is weak. I'd like to read the background.

Thanks for the help.

 

[codenamepaul]

Ditto here. Google and Findlaw are getting me crap.

 

[DR]

Do you have a link to US v Murray, cited above? I must be a spaz, because I can usually find this stuff, but my search foo is weak. I'd like to read the background.

Thanks for the help.

United States v. Murray, 271 F.3d 349

BugMeNot has some valid logins if needed.

 

[ScottS]

United States v. Murray, 271 F.3d 349

BugMeNot has some valid logins if needed.

Thank you. I don't know why the hell I couldn't find that.

I have a question for legal beagles. The only reference to the "other lawful purposes" portion of the law is in a footnote, which doesn't read as if it's a part of the decision, but rather as editorial comment for the reader. Can anyone familiar with this sort of thing tell me who wrote the footnote, and whether or not it's a part of the actual decision?

Thanks.

And thanks, again, for the link.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What is most interesting is that the defense was based on "knowingly" and that the "incidental to lawful purposes" issue was not raised (or at least not mentioned in the on-line version of the case).

 

[RKG]

Do you have a link to US v Murray, cited above? I must be a spaz, because I can usually find this stuff, but my search foo is weak. I'd like to read the background.

Thanks for the help.

I use Lexis, which is a proprietary subscription service. I'm not aware of any free legal research services, but someone else may be.

 

[RKG]

Thank you. I don't know why the hell I couldn't find that.

I have a question for legal beagles. The only reference to the "other lawful purposes" portion of the law is in a footnote, which doesn't read as if it's a part of the decision, but rather as editorial comment for the reader. Can anyone familiar with this sort of thing tell me who wrote the footnote, and whether or not it's a part of the actual decision?

Thanks.

And thanks, again, for the link.

The footnote is part of the decision, and it was written by the author and endorsed by the panel.

Murray isn't particularly helpful, because the conclusion (to wit: the exception doesn't apply) isn't explained by any rationale. However, given that the case stated includes that Murray was lawfully carrying in the State of Maine, this result precludes the conclusion that lawful carrying by itself is "other lawful purpose" within the meaning of section 930. That is to say, if that proposition were true, then the outcome of the appeal would have been to reverse.

From which you conclude that carrying in a Post Office within the First Circuit (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico) brings with it a significant likelihood of a federal felony conviction. Buy your stamps from a machine.

 

[FPrice]

He (Murray) was informed that civilians could not check guns and that he would have to leave the building. Murray did not leave but instead became irate. In the confrontation that ensued, Murray at one point put his hand on his weapon and did not comply with repeated instructions to turn the pistol over to the officers. Finally, after one of the officers managed to remove the pistol, Murray was restrained and arrested.

Sounds like he was refused entry, was asked/told to leave, and decided to make an issue of the situation.

 

[drgrant]

From which you conclude that carrying in a Post Office within the First Circuit (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico) brings with it a significant likelihood of a federal felony conviction. Buy your stamps from a machine.

Too bad the machines are typically -inside- the post office!

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Costco's sells rolls of stamps (100) at a $0.25 discount. 100 $0.41 stamps cost $40.75 and I'm already there each week to shop anyway.

Suspect that BJ's and Sam's Club may do the same, but haven't looked.

 

[dwarven1]

usps.com - you can order on line and the letter carrier (which is a PC way to say mailman) will bring them to you the next day.

 

[MichaelJ]

I agree with dwarven1. My answer would be concealed carry = concealed [ie: don't make a big (or small) deal about it if you are carrying in a post office. How long are you usually there? Are you doing some type of activity that would make your weapon come into view? If you can carry all day long without anyone knowing that you have a CCW, why would they automatically find out when you walk into the post office?

The "head honcho" that said NO - ABSOLUTELY NOT was probably just covering his own ass. What he could have interpreted the question as is; "If I work for the USPS I know I am not able to bring a gun to work and harm a co-worker. But would it be against the law for me to CCW into the Post Office as a CUSTOMER and harm a co-worker with my gun?" Ya never know.

I know my company policy (national big-box retailer) prohibits me to have any weapons on my person, in a company locker, on company premises (yes, they even state in my vehicle) while conducting company business. But you can bet your ass that when I am not on the clock and happen to have my CCW with me, if I need to go in the store, I go in the store. No one knows the wiser and they need not know. If for some incredibly unfortunate reason I ever had to furnish my weapon within the store, I would have much larger problems than company policy.

[Steps down off soap box]

 

[codenamepaul]

The footnote is part of the decision, and it was written by the author and endorsed by the panel.

Murray isn't particularly helpful, because the conclusion (to wit: the exception doesn't apply) isn't explained by any rationale. However, given that the case stated includes that Murray was lawfully carrying in the State of Maine, this result precludes the conclusion that lawful carrying by itself is "other lawful purpose" within the meaning of section 930. That is to say, if that proposition were true, then the outcome of the appeal would have been to reverse.

From which you conclude that carrying in a Post Office within the First Circuit (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico) brings with it a significant likelihood of a federal felony conviction. Buy your stamps from a machine.

I disagree. Based on what I'm reading here,the argument of 'other lawful purpose' was never raised and, therefore, not considered in the appeal decision. If it had been raised as part of the appeal, I think it would have been found that 'other lawful purpose' would be an exception.

 

[Rusty Barrels]

I get the feeling this is one of those situations where there may never be a definitive answer. I don't think it's too cynical to assume that if you were in a PO and some idiot started shooting and you shot back the postal inspectors would drag you off just like any ordinary perp. I can't tell you guys how paranoid this company is about violence. But consider this- I have never noticed cameras in a PO and the security is very lax in general. Clerks and carriers surely receive less security training than your average convenience or liquor store clerk even though there is a lot more cash lying around. I get a little worried at work that some reckless fool will realize this and do something rash. Maybe I should start carrying TWO cans of dog spray...

 

[Xak]

I get the feeling this is one of those situations where there may never be a definitive answer. I don't think it's too cynical to assume that if you were in a PO and some idiot started shooting and you shot back the postal inspectors would drag you off just like any ordinary perp. I can't tell you guys how paranoid this company is about violence. But consider this- I have never noticed cameras in a PO and the security is very lax in general. Clerks and carriers surely receive less security training than your average convenience or liquor store clerk even though there is a lot more cash lying around. I get a little worried at work that some reckless fool will realize this and do something rash. Maybe I should start carrying TWO cans of dog spray...

Well, it does tend to be the places that ban firearms that have the worst outcomes when criminals ignore that ban.