Is it legal to carry in a post office?

Z

zeppelinfromled

Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
894
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
Feedback: 16 / 0 / 0
My understanding is that it is illegal to carry in any federal building. A separate understanding is that the USPS is a federal service. So putting the two together, it seems that I cannot carry in a post office. Is this correct?
 
The last time this conversation came up. Someone mentioned there are signs posted saying it's prohibited. I looked the next time I was in there. Sure enough, there is a poster saying it's illegal to carry firearms in the Post Office.
 
ummmm its called CONCEALED CARRY.

Nobody knows you have it until you need to use it. Chances in post office = unlikely.
Time you spend in a post office is about 10 min. Statistically chance of you needing to expose your weapon is greater than winning 10 lotterys in a row.

Yes thats made up, but think about it.
 
Sure enough, there is a poster saying it's illegal to carry firearms in the Post Office.
Click to expand...
That poster conveniently leaves off the next item in 10 USC which states that carry in a post office is allowed if it is incidental to a lawful purpose. If the law was enforced as written, the only questions would be "Is your carry for a lawful purpose?" and "was entry to the post office incidental to that purpose"? I would not want bet my clean record on a court enforcing the law as written without inferring what the court feels it "obviously was intended to mean".

There is an additional regulation that carries no such exemption, but carries less force that 10 USC.

In other words, nobody really knows.
 
Pilgrim said:
there's a lot of discussion on this and it's not totally definite. Do a search and you can find everything and still not be sure.
Click to expand...

It used to be "uncertain" but recently the feds changed the law or clariified it, and now it's more along the lines of "No" than anything else.

-Mike
 
Rob Boudrie said:
That poster conveniently leaves off the next item in 10 USC which states that carry in a post office is allowed if it is incidental to a lawful purpose. If the law was enforced as written, the only questions would be "Is your carry for a lawful purpose?" and "was entry to the post office incidental to that purpose"? I would not want bet my clean record on a court enforcing the law as written without inferring what the court feels it "obviously was intended to mean".

There is an additional regulation that carries no such exemption, but carries less force that 10 USC.

In other words, nobody really knows.
Click to expand...
By 10 USC, are you referring to 18 USC §930?
 
Pilgrim said:
there's a lot of discussion on this and it's not totally definite. Do a search and you can find everything and still not be sure.
Click to expand...
The post office prohibition on carrying includes "other dangerous weapons and explosives", unless carried for "official purposes". Having a switchblade knife, tactical folder or a fixed blade sheath knife on you when entering post office property would be equally illegal.
 
I don't know why people still think this is a "gray area". It's very cut and dry. 39 USC 410 makes 18 USC 930 inapplicable to Post Offices anyway. So 39 CFR 232.1 applies without exception.

Post Office carry is illegal.
 
jdubois said:
I don't know why people still think this is a "gray area". It's very cut and dry. 39 USC 410 makes 18 USC 930 inapplicable to Post Offices anyway. So 39 CFR 232.1 applies without exception.

Post Office carry is illegal.
Click to expand...
Hunh. That's an interesting observation.

Is there any case on that point? I cannot find one in a cursory search, and that reading as a given seems to be a stretch of 39 USC 410, which I don't think Congress intended to set up the USPS as an entity independent of all Federal law, but rather one set up to self-regulate within its granted authority. I realize it's the word "property" in 410(a) that is driving the conclusion - yet b)(2) says that "all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States" shall apply. Is the provision in title 18 prohibiting weapons except pursuant to a lawful purpose included in b)(2)? Or is it superseded with the rest in a)? I.e., does the USPS have the authority to promulgate its own facility regulations that run in contradiction to Title 18?

I'd say it once again boils down to, "do you want to be a test case?" For anyone but an activist with money or backers, the answer should probably be, "no."
 
I.e., does the USPS have the authority to promulgate its own facility regulations that run in contradiction to Title 18?
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the penalty for violating a promulaged rule is most likely FAR less than the penalty for violation of USC 18 (not 10 as I previously mentioned).

Speculation on the net is rampant, with differing opinions (even by persons with JD degrees).
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Furthermore, the penalty for violating a promulaged rule is most likely FAR less than the penalty for violation of USC 18 (not 10 as I previously mentioned).

Speculation on the net is rampant, with differing opinions (even by persons with JD degrees).
Click to expand...
Speculation seems to be appropriate, since there doesn't seem to be a case on point and the statutory materials require interpretation/harmonizing.

Mind, given that the USPS posts portions of 18 USC 930 on the wall, it would be a rather interesting argument for them to make that it is inapplicable to the USPS...

But yes, like Blitz says, it'd be a test case. I don't agree necessarily that "chances are you will lose" and I don't know what he bases that on, other than a defeatist sense of personal oppression [wink], but unless you consider spending $100K on lawyers to "win" to be a "win" . . . the usual advice applies: Don't be a test case.
 
strangenh said:
I realize it's the word "property" in 410(a) that is driving the conclusion - yet b)(2) says that "all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States" shall apply.
Click to expand...

18 USC 930 is dealing in general with 'federal facilities', not the Postal Service specifically. If you interpret 410(b)(2) to mean anything in title 18 that might generally apply to the post office, then you've created a big legal circle that leads nowhere and basically vacates the meaning of 410. This clearly is not the intention of the law makers. If you wish to argue that the two codes are contradicting each other, you have to side with the code that more specifically deals with the Post Office. That is title 39, and § 401(2) gives the Post Office the authority to create CFR 232.1.

strangenh said:
Is there any case on that point?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any. The penalties are generally on the order of $50/30 days (though it varies from district to district), so I'm not surprised nobody tries to fight it when caught.
 
jdubois said:
18 USC 930 is dealing in general with 'federal facilities', not the Postal Service specifically. If you interpret 410(b)(2) to mean anything in title 18 that might generally apply to the post office, then you've created a big legal circle that leads nowhere and basically vacates the meaning of 410. This clearly is not the intention of the law makers. If you wish to argue that the two codes are contradicting each other, you have to side with the code that more specifically deals with the Post Office. That is title 39, and § 401(2) gives the Post Office the authority to create CFR 232.1.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but I'd think it also unlikely that the Congressional record is going to show an intent to cut the USPS loose from practically all Federal law. Can they dump hexavalent chromium slag on premises and make a nonregulated superfund-style site the EPA cannot touch? Perhaps. How about disregarding all building regulations? Perhaps that, too.

I really think it boils down to two unlikely legal positions that beg for court resolution. A resolution that, as you posit, is unlikely to come, making it "uncertain" law, which always - always - cuts against the citizen, not the state (economically at least).

I don't know of any. The penalties are generally on the order of $50/30 days (though it varies from district to district), so I'm not surprised nobody tries to fight it when caught.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a lot of coin to fight what's basically a misdemeanor through the appellate courts, not to mention a lot of AUSAs who won't even move a federal misdemeanor forward.
 
jdubois said:
I don't know of any. The penalties are generally on the order of $50/30 days (though it varies from district to district), so I'm not surprised nobody tries to fight it when caught.
Click to expand...

If you were caught somehow, wouldn't they also have the authority to steal
your firearm as well?

I always thought that laws regulating carry in those kinds of facilities
ended up being felonies of some sort.

Of course, now this whole thing has gotten dramatically more confusing than
it already was to begin with before the regs/laws were changed.


-Mike
 
Post office CCF

Hi all

18 USC Sec 922 prohibits the carry of a handgun
on federal property. And while the post office
doesn't like you to carry on their property
there are several exceptions

one is for any lawful purpose. So unless
youre there to rob it, I would suspect
That you'll be ok to carry

Regards

steve D. Esq.
 
This goes round and round all the time. The argument seems to focus on the fact that the exemption incidental to some other lawful activity, which appears in the law but not the CFR is still valid. IMHO, this completely misses the issue. It obviously and undeniably applies, as evidenced by the Postal Service's and ATF's rules for mailing guns. How could you mail them if you can't possess them? The question really should focus on whether personal protection would constitute such a lawful activity here. It's an open question, because the only case law anyone has ever referenced is for people carrying in other federal buildings or who have caused some trouble other than just carrying a gun peacefully. When in doubt, remember the definition of concealed carry.

Ken
 
he question really should focus on whether personal protection would constitute such a lawful activity here.
Click to expand...
Actually, the question would center around on whether or not knowingly entering a post office while armed is "incidental to" the activity of lawful personal protection, not if the protection is lawful. It is conceivable a federal court could hold that a hunter stepping on USPS land was an "incidental" activity, but entering a building you know to be a post office is not "incidental" to lawful carry but a distinct and separate activity.

In certain situations, the courts use "desired public policy", rather than what the law states, to decide the case.
 
Coplawyer said:
Hi all

18 USC Sec 922 prohibits the carry of a handgun
on federal property.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum! I think you meant 18 USC 930, not 18 USC 922.

KMaurer said:
How could you mail them if you can't possess them?
Click to expand...

The CFR doesn't use the word "possess" it uses the word "carry". A firearm properly packaged for mailing would not, for this regulation, fall under the intended meaning of "carry". So I don't think you can use that as prima facia evidence that the exception in 930 applies.
 
For your convenience...


Chargogg said:
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
Click to expand...
 
While that particular piece of info from Glidden's book doesn't really cover anything we haven't already discussed in this thread, and as RKG mentioned in that previous thread, Glidden is guessing as much as the rest of us are, I have to mention that anybody who has any interest in MA firearms laws who doesn't have that book should get themselves a copy. It is an invaluable resource.
 
Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices

Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009 at 9:26 am

Post Office Court Case Says No Guns in Post Offices


Oregon Firearms Federation
Salem, Oregon - -(AmmoLand.com)-For some time there has been confusion about the legality of carrying a firearm in a Post Office.

Many Post Offices have signs posted stating it is unlawful. However, Federal law does NOT prohibit possession of firearms in Post Offices for “any lawful purpose.”

In our book “Understanding Oregon’s Gun Laws” we stated that we knew of no successful prosecutions for persons carrying guns in Post Offices, but otherwise committing no crime.

Unfortunately we now have one.

It’s important to note that the conviction stemmed not from any violation of law, but of a violation of a “rule” which is a very troubling development.

To see the entire ruling, read below or use this link :

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 08-31197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee v. CLARENCE PAUL DOROSAN,
Defendant – Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 08-CR-42-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Clarence Paul Dorosan appeals his conviction of violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) for bringing a handgun onto property belonging to the United States Postal Service. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

Dorosan raises one argument on appeal: The regulation under which he was convicted violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 555 U.S. —-, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2822 (2008). Assuming Dorosan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying a handgun in his car, Dorosan’s challenge nonetheless fails.

First, the Postal Service owned the parking lot where Dorosan’s handgun was found, and its restrictions on guns stemmed from its constitutional authority as the property owner. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3 cl. 2; United States v. Gliatta, 580 F.2d 156, 160 (5th Cir. 1978). This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power that was the source of the ban addressed in Heller. See 128 S. Ct. at 2787-88 (noting the laws in question “generally prohibit[ed] the possession of handguns” anywhere in the city).

Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the “sensitive places” exception recognized by Heller. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (holding that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .”).

Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site. Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.

In conclusion, the above-stated facts do not compel us to hold that § 232.1(l) as applied to Dorosan is unconstitutional under any applicable level of scrutiny.

Oregon Firearms Federation
PO Box 556
Canby, OR 97013
Voice: (503) 263-5830
www.oregonfirearms.org
About:
The Oregon Firearms Federation has proven itself to be Oregon’s only no compromise lobbying group, OFEF takes the same tough stands and serves as a vehicle for educating gun owners, promoting their rights and when necessary, fighting the freedom haters in court.

Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com

http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/21/no-guns-in-post-offices/

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Open Carry in MA?
2
Replies
30
Views
327
M1911
M1911
  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
798
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
518
drgrant
drgrant
Post-ban High Capacity Magazines
Replies
6
Views
389
CrackPot
CrackPot
  • Locked
Is it legal ?
2 3
Replies
75
Views
2K
M1911
M1911
Back
Top Bottom