Why aren't CCW holders allowed to carry into a Post Office?

[Cherokee_Outlaw]

Hmm, well now that's interesting. That poster sites the Title 18 law that we've been discussing, and which is ambiguous at best. But it also sites Title 39 Section 232.1, which seems pretty clear:

"(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."

It doesnt show everything... On the old thread that talked about this... This one post talks about it more..

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=314997&postcount=35

 

[Lynne]

I bet it's a hit with the ladies.

Not with this one, cutie. I always know who's around me and how close.

 

[pupchow]

This should cover it -- paragraph (l):

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 39, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2007]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 39CFR232.1]


TITLE 39--POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER I--UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PART 232_CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents

Sec. 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.
(b) Inspection, recording presence. (1) Purses, briefcases, and
other containers brought into, while on, or being removed from the
property are subject to inspection. However, items brought directly to a
postal facility's customer mailing acceptance area and deposited in the
mail are not subject to inspection, except as provided by section 274 of
the Administrative Support Manual. A person arrested for violation of
this section may be searched incident to that arrest.
(2) Vehicles and their contents brought into, while on, or being
removed from restricted nonpublic areas are subject to inspection. A
prominently displayed sign shall advise in advance that vehicles and
their contents are subject to inspection when entering the restricted
nonpublic area, while in the confines of the area, or when leaving the
area. Persons entering these areas who object and refuse to consent to
the inspection of the vehicle, its contents, or both, may be denied
entry; after entering the area without objection, consent shall be
implied. A full search of a person and any vehicle driven or occupied by
the person may accompany an arrest.
...

(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.
...

(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules
and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are
imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate
in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such
rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region
involved.
(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.
(q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security
force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and
shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a
manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon.
(2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40
U.S.C. 1315(d)(3) and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or
his designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement
agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a
manner that will protect Postal Service property.
(3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal
Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal
Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.

[37 FR 24346, Nov. 16, 1972, as amended at 38 FR 27824, Oct. 9, 1973; 41
FR 23955, June 14, 1976; 42 FR 17443, Apr. 1, 1977; 43 FR 38825, Aug.
31, 1978; 46 FR 898, Jan. 5, 1981. Redesignated and amended at 46 FR
34330, July 1, 1981; 47 FR 32113, July 26, 1982; 53 FR 29460, Aug. 5,
1988; 54 FR 20527, May 12, 1989; 57 FR 36903, Aug. 17, 1993; 57 FR
38443, Aug. 25, 1992; 63 FR 34600, June 25, 1998; 70 FR 72078, Dec. 1,
2005; 71 FR 11161, Mar. 6, 2006; 72 FR 11288, Mar. 13, 2007; 72 FR
12565, Mar. 16, 2007]

 

[jdubois]

It doesnt show everything... On the old thread that talked about this... This one post talks about it more..

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=314997&postcount=35

Excellent, thanks for the link, that's interesting.

"In other words, the CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility."

Hmm, but does the CFR really 'trump' the USC when the USC has the exception 'for lawful purposes' and the CFR clearly makes carrying in a PO a non-lawful purpose? I think you could argue that the two laws are working together, not one trumping the other.

(Note that I don't necessarily agree, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate)

 

[Coyote33]

Scriv? RKG? Cross-X? Jesse?

 

[M14Robert]

I keep seeing "in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon".

What needs protection if the patron of the establishment is an "otherwise law-abiding citizen" and is making no threats to the property or persons thereon?

No harm, no foul?