-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Concealed Carry in a Post Ofiice
- Thread starter Rusty Barrels
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,556
- Likes
- 33,623
People were wondering if lawful civilian carry was covered under "...and other lawful purposes." - if the section was intended to cover only hunting the second clause would not be there, so it must mean something. What is intended to cover, however, remains a mystery.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Exactly my point. If it were raised as part of the appeal, we likely would have and answer to that question. And then an additional regulation to refute or contradict it.
Concealed carry in a Post Office IS legal in MA !!!
Dear Fellow NES Members and Guests:
First off - sorry for the length of this post!
I found the following excerpt on pages 380 and 381 of the Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law, published by Chief Ron Glidden and Atty. John Collins. This publication is used to train police officers in MA at the State Police Academy. I'm providing this information in order to clear up some confusion on the Post Office carry discussion. I contacted Atty Collins who gave me permission to post this information. Hope you find it useful. P.S. I've added the link to purchase the CD version for $41.50 directly from the Municipal Police Institute. No, I don't get any commissions on sales!!! Thanks to all of you members and users (especially Derek and the moderators) for making this such a useful and informative site. - Best regards - Randy B.
P.S.S. - For all the non-members who read this great site - please spend a small amount of money and join NES to support a very worthwhile cause!
Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law 11th Edition
Concealed Carry in the Post Office
18 U.S.C. §930
There is much public confusion on the legality of carrying a concealed firearm in a post office. The confusion is based in part on posters typically observed at federal buildings citing 18 U.S.C. § 930. Unfortunately, the posters do not mention the exception to the law that applies to those private citizens who lawfully carry handguns.
18 U.S.C. §930 Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(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.
For non-law enforcement personnel in Massachusetts, in order to fall within the exception to the law, two conditions have to be met. First, one has to be engaged in the “lawful carrying of firearms.” This means you cannot be a “prohibited person” such as a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, or fall within any of the other categories that would prohibit one from lawfully purchasing or owning a firearm under federal law.
It also means that it must be legal for you to carry the firearm under any applicable federal, state, and local laws. For example your license to carry is restricted to target and hunting, you would not be allowed to carry in a post office on the federal section. The second condition that has to be met for one to fall within the exception to the ban on carrying a firearm in a federal facility is that one must be carrying in the facility “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” One cannot be in the facility with intent to commit a crime, or while committing a crime, and fall within the exception.
A simple test of whether one may legally carry in a post office could involve answering four questions:
1. Is it illegal for me to carry a handgun on the street outside the post office?
2. Is there a state or local law prohibiting carry in a post office?
3. Am I violating the terms of my LTC by carrying inside a post office?
4. Am I going to commit a crime or engage in some unlawful activity once inside the facility?
If one answers “no” to all four questions, it seems that one falls within the exception to the federal ban on carrying in a federal facility. The answer to the first three questions seeks to resolve whether one is engaged in the “lawful carrying” of a firearm. The answer to the final question seeks to resolve whether one is carrying “incident to … lawful purposes.”
© 2006 380
Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law 11th Edition
It is important to note that the term “Federal facility” does not include a federal court facility. Even with a valid concealed weapon or handgun license, it is a federal offense to bring a firearm into a federal court facility. Under this statue, the only persons who may lawfully carry in a federal court facility are federal, state, or local law enforcement officers on official duty, or a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if authorized to possess the firearm.
Addendum
The Code of Federal Regulations contains the following regulation (excerpted in pertinent part; full text from link):
39 C.F.R. 232.1 Conduct on Postal Property:
(l) Weapons and explosives. 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.
However, looking further down the regulation, we see the following: (p) Penalties and other law.
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property
under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment
of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed
to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations
applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
Regulations in the CFR have to be based on laws in the United States Code, must be consistent with them, and cannot supercede them. Section (p)(2) of the 39 CFR 232.1 recognizes this fact. That is, the CFR cannot abrogate applicable Federal law.
In so far as firearms are concerned, 18 U.S.C. § 930 (a) is essentially the same as 39 CFR 232.1 (l), except that the regulations do not contain the exception for lawful concealed carry contained in 18 U.S.C. § 930 (d) (3). But by its own terms, the regulations do not override the United States Code ("Federal law"), which does allows carrying a firearm in federal facility.
In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.
© 2006 381
http://www.municipalpoliceinstitute.org/product-detail.php?productid=11
Dear Fellow NES Members and Guests:
First off - sorry for the length of this post!
I found the following excerpt on pages 380 and 381 of the Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law, published by Chief Ron Glidden and Atty. John Collins. This publication is used to train police officers in MA at the State Police Academy. I'm providing this information in order to clear up some confusion on the Post Office carry discussion. I contacted Atty Collins who gave me permission to post this information. Hope you find it useful. P.S. I've added the link to purchase the CD version for $41.50 directly from the Municipal Police Institute. No, I don't get any commissions on sales!!! Thanks to all of you members and users (especially Derek and the moderators) for making this such a useful and informative site. - Best regards - Randy B.
P.S.S. - For all the non-members who read this great site - please spend a small amount of money and join NES to support a very worthwhile cause!
Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law 11th Edition
Concealed Carry in the Post Office
18 U.S.C. §930
There is much public confusion on the legality of carrying a concealed firearm in a post office. The confusion is based in part on posters typically observed at federal buildings citing 18 U.S.C. § 930. Unfortunately, the posters do not mention the exception to the law that applies to those private citizens who lawfully carry handguns.
18 U.S.C. §930 Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(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.
For non-law enforcement personnel in Massachusetts, in order to fall within the exception to the law, two conditions have to be met. First, one has to be engaged in the “lawful carrying of firearms.” This means you cannot be a “prohibited person” such as a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, or fall within any of the other categories that would prohibit one from lawfully purchasing or owning a firearm under federal law.
It also means that it must be legal for you to carry the firearm under any applicable federal, state, and local laws. For example your license to carry is restricted to target and hunting, you would not be allowed to carry in a post office on the federal section. The second condition that has to be met for one to fall within the exception to the ban on carrying a firearm in a federal facility is that one must be carrying in the facility “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” One cannot be in the facility with intent to commit a crime, or while committing a crime, and fall within the exception.
A simple test of whether one may legally carry in a post office could involve answering four questions:
1. Is it illegal for me to carry a handgun on the street outside the post office?
2. Is there a state or local law prohibiting carry in a post office?
3. Am I violating the terms of my LTC by carrying inside a post office?
4. Am I going to commit a crime or engage in some unlawful activity once inside the facility?
If one answers “no” to all four questions, it seems that one falls within the exception to the federal ban on carrying in a federal facility. The answer to the first three questions seeks to resolve whether one is engaged in the “lawful carrying” of a firearm. The answer to the final question seeks to resolve whether one is carrying “incident to … lawful purposes.”
© 2006 380
Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law 11th Edition
It is important to note that the term “Federal facility” does not include a federal court facility. Even with a valid concealed weapon or handgun license, it is a federal offense to bring a firearm into a federal court facility. Under this statue, the only persons who may lawfully carry in a federal court facility are federal, state, or local law enforcement officers on official duty, or a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if authorized to possess the firearm.
Addendum
The Code of Federal Regulations contains the following regulation (excerpted in pertinent part; full text from link):
39 C.F.R. 232.1 Conduct on Postal Property:
(l) Weapons and explosives. 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.
However, looking further down the regulation, we see the following: (p) Penalties and other law.
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property
under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment
of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed
to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations
applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
Regulations in the CFR have to be based on laws in the United States Code, must be consistent with them, and cannot supercede them. Section (p)(2) of the 39 CFR 232.1 recognizes this fact. That is, the CFR cannot abrogate applicable Federal law.
In so far as firearms are concerned, 18 U.S.C. § 930 (a) is essentially the same as 39 CFR 232.1 (l), except that the regulations do not contain the exception for lawful concealed carry contained in 18 U.S.C. § 930 (d) (3). But by its own terms, the regulations do not override the United States Code ("Federal law"), which does allows carrying a firearm in federal facility.
In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.
© 2006 381
http://www.municipalpoliceinstitute.org/product-detail.php?productid=11
Thanks. I've been saying that for many years and usually get lots of "I asked someone at the USPO and was told NO!" or other similar responses.
One must be VERY CAREFUL of State Law however, as the above applies to MA, there are many other states where USPO CCW would really be illegal.
One must be VERY CAREFUL of State Law however, as the above applies to MA, there are many other states where USPO CCW would really be illegal.
Thanks!
"lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."
I understand the lawful purpose, but what would constitute "incident to hunting" in the post office??
"lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."
I understand the lawful purpose, but what would constitute "incident to hunting" in the post office??
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,556
- Likes
- 33,623
First off, the term is "OR" and I assume it means a hunter who walks onto postal land.
This is from a book written by a Massachusetts police chief. It's important to note that the courts have held that the "entrapment by estoppel" defense may not be raised when the representation regarding a federal offense is made by a state official and vice-versa. That defense would be available in a postal situation if a federal official had made a representation carry was legal and the patron relied on it, however, a statement by a MA official does not establish the groundwork for such a defense. Chief Glidden does, however, lay out excellent logic that could form as a starting point for defense counsel.
As usual, the lawyers on this list are encouraged to post corrections if they see any inaccuracies in this posting by a non-attorney.
Rob, I have seen essentially the same info provided by a few attorneys and posted on the Internet.
Problem is that all the Postmaster and clerks see is the poster on the wall that INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTS the USC that it relies on and is notated on the bottom of the poster (in small print).
Problem is that all the Postmaster and clerks see is the poster on the wall that INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTS the USC that it relies on and is notated on the bottom of the poster (in small print).
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,556
- Likes
- 33,623
So have I, but interestingly enough, these attorneys never cite case law or decisions that back up their analysis, which means one might be charting new territory if it came to using such a defense.
With all due respect to Chief Glidden, he is speculating. One telltale is the conclusory phraseology, "it would seem." "It would seem" is traditional lawyerese for "There is no reliable answer in the case law, but this is my guess as to how the question might be answered by a Court considering it for the first time."
I, for one, would not bet my liberty, clean record, or LTC on his speculation being affirmed after the fact by the Court in which I was indicted for carrying in a Post Office.
I buy my stamps from a machine.
I, for one, would not bet my liberty, clean record, or LTC on his speculation being affirmed after the fact by the Court in which I was indicted for carrying in a Post Office.
I buy my stamps from a machine.
