Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/7/2002 8:52:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2002 8:53:18 AM EDT by ctyatty]
I looked at the sign at the Post Office and it mentions 18 United States Code Section 930(a) as prohibiting firearms and then says "except as provided in subsection (d)"   without explaining subsection (d), the lawful purpose exception. That subsection is "(d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to -- . . .
(3)the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

So feel free to lawfully carry into the Post Office without violating the US Code.

There is a USPS reg in the CFR that appears to be more stringent, but its not posted as required by the CFR, so that can be ignored as far as I am concerned.
Link Posted: 12/7/2002 9:59:05 AM EDT
ctyatty: I realize you aren't giving legal advice but are you a practicing attorney?  It appears you are in agreement with Robert P. Firriolo, Esq.


Steve-in VA do you have an opinion on this matter that you could share with us? TIA
Link Posted: 12/7/2002 7:38:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/7/2002 7:39:05 PM EDT by ctyatty]
I am a state prosecutor so I also get the exception to the prohibition under:

"(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;"

Nice phrase when you said not giving legal advice. Anything any lawyer does of this nature is for general educational value, not as "advice."

I've got child porn case I'm working with some Postal Inspectors, next time I have the chance I'll ask what the SOP is for response to otherwise lawful firearm carrying.

20 years ago in college I was a contract mail truck driver, the "rules" said no guns. One time I was shot at, blasted the side window out of the truck. That left me with something less than warm feelings for bureaucrats who write these BS regs.
Link Posted: 12/8/2002 9:48:48 AM EDT
Thanks ctyatty.  Hey don't blame me for "this is not legal advice disclaimer." It's you guys that are always saying that. [:D]

I recently talked to an attorney over the phone on a civil matter and the first thing he said to me was "Anything I say in this conversation should not be taken as legal advice."  He also recorded the conversation in case I later tried to sue him.

It wasn't worth his time to pursue the matter because there wasn't enough money involved and he wouldn't even recommend another attorney because he said I might sue him if I wasn't satisfied with the other attorney.
Link Posted: 12/8/2002 10:28:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/9/2002 5:10:06 AM EDT
That's because of guys like me who like to file legal malpractice claims. I've found that juries are not sympathetic to lawyers. Chicken or the egg?
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 7:21:38 PM EDT
so what's the verdict?  does your interpretation seem to be valid?  I agree with it, but would like to know a little better, if possible.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 4:09:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 4:20:36 AM EDT by Gecko]
Don't know if I would want to "hang my hat on it", or if it has ever been tested in court, but Title 18 USC 921 (2), Congressional Findings and Declarations, say's "...it is not the purpose of this Title {refering to section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968} to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, transporting, target shooting, PERSONAL PROTECTION, or any other lawful activity, and that this Title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abididng citizens for lawful purposes."
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:41:09 AM EDT
My Postal Inspector friend says they never screw with an otherwise law abiding person legally carrying.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 7:07:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 7:10:56 PM EDT by BISHOP]
With a little creative wording we are all article 1

(1) [b]the lawful performance of official duties[/b] by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, [b]a State [i]issued CCW to an individual[/i][/b] or a political subdivision thereof, who [b]is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,[/b] or prosecution [b]of any violation of law;[/b]"

As a holder of a State Issued CCW we all fall into that catagory.  Its our duty as CCW holders to do such things.

[b]"I don't Carry JUST to protect others, but to protect myself too."[/b]

I have been living with that quote since I made it up, at 18

Top Top