User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:14:16 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't think it is allowed but I don't know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:14:55 PM EDT
[#2]
no. I believe it is a federal felony
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:15:28 PM EDT
[#3]
"official purposes"  I don't care, I'm carrying anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:15:46 PM EDT
[#4]
I think its off limits
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:15:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Felony.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:18:13 PM EDT
[#6]
My plan, if I ever get caught, is to use what I call the "Dallas Defense":
[deep southern accent] "I DIN'T KNOW THAYAT!"[/deep southern accent] |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:18:41 PM EDT
[#7]
from the second link, which includes the full version of the law that is shown in abbreviated form on the wal at the local post office:
Wouldn't legal CCW be an 'other lawful purpose', just like described in the first link in my original post? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:26:44 PM EDT
[#8]
I was told postal inspectors are the only ones allowed to carry in a post office. Regular cops cannot?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:28:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Well, I looked at Michigan's list of prohibited areas, and he P.O. is not on the list. Checked the USPS site and could not find anything, guess I'll have to look at the signs at the P.O. when I go by tonight... but I have not seen anything banning handguns there before. Just the notice that the use of a firearm in a crime at the P.O. is a felony...yada yada yada.
No Expert |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:34:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Kinda of a catch 22 for me.....how do I mail firearms to other FFLs?
Bomber |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:36:32 PM EDT
[#11]
It's legal. See "...other lawful purposes."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:37:45 PM EDT
[#12]
Don't interject common sense on this board!  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:43:11 PM EDT
[#13]
"Probably." Question is: Do you have the $100,000 to fight the battle with the .gov? Someone is going to fight the good fight, but I can't afford it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 12:55:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes, do not mess with the Federal Government, you will most likely lose. Did you know speeding on airport property is a federal offense too? Do not ever get pulled over for speeding at an airport, it will ruin your day. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:04:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Really? Do you have a cite for that? The airport here in Tampa is owned by the County, and the airport cops are County employees. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:07:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Yes, I used to live in Tampa and have made many trips to that airport (one of the best in the country, IMHO).
Security at airports are not local Johnnie-Cops. They do not fall under local jursidiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:18:28 PM EDT
[#17]
Interesting. The job description for airport police sergeant is posted on the COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE website. http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/cs/payscales/jobdetail.cfm?jobcode=P1412&print=true |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:20:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Google is your friend: I just found this quote: Airport Police Officers have federal responsibility and authority under Federal Aviation Regulation 1542 (49CFR1542). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:20:42 PM EDT
[#19]
You read it here first! It's OK to hunt inside US Post Offices!  
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:22:47 PM EDT
[#20]
But that does NOT make them Federal employees... or Federal officers. ALL police officers can enforce Federal law. What's your TOEFL score? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:23:53 PM EDT
[#21]
+1, it's good to see that there are at least a couple of people who didn't fail reading comprehension around here.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:25:09 PM EDT
[#22]
They are local employees, but have 'Federal Authority' and like to use it...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:26:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Perhaps, but only for Federal laws do they have Federal authority. Speeding is still a local (i.e. State of Florida) civil infraction. QED. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:28:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Ok, I will be a man and admit I am wrong, perhaps it is an old wives tale about speeding at airports? Take a few 60 mph laps around TIA and let us know how it goes  For reasearch purposes...
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:32:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Yes, I know a moron who got arrested for trespassing on federal grounds for riding his dirtbike around a small plane airport. The dummy ignored all the signs.
He was lucky he wasn't shot. Plus there was great places all around the airport to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:36:22 PM EDT
[#26]
How would the PO guys know you were carrying?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:40:48 PM EDT
[#27]
This is one of the questions on the Texas Concealed Carry Test.
It is against the law to carry a pistol in a Post Office. No "ifs, ands, or buts". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:42:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Illegal I hear. Carry at your own risk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:43:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Would you like to say *which* laws it is against?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:43:27 PM EDT
[#30]
So Federal law can take precidents (sp?) over local law... hmmm... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:45:22 PM EDT
[#31]
That is correct. Post Offices are Federal property and they can regulate the carrying of weapons on that property. Not saying that I agree with the law, just saying what the law says. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:46:33 PM EDT
[#32]
could you please cite an actual TX or federal law which states this? The test could be wrong... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:54:34 PM EDT
[#33]
As an immigrant I could be classifed as a terrorist for carrying in a post office and held incommunicado for years. Thank you Patriot Act.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 1:57:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Sorry, rules are different for citizens over immigrants... Probably the same wherever you came from Although this could happen to citizens to, I guess
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:02:09 PM EDT
[#35]
+1 The test in question is obviously inconsistent with the actual text of the law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:03:14 PM EDT
[#36]
I am sure it came up after several fine Postal employees decided to go, uhmmm. Postal... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:12:12 PM EDT
[#37]
I thought that the USPS was a business and the mail itself was Federal. Either way I don't care.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:28:54 PM EDT
[#38]
It's legal. I do it all the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:30:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Nevermind the gun, being Canadian should be reason enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:45:26 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:47:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the USPS privatized? My friends that work at the Terre Haute, IN mail hub are not civil service any longer and there are very few FERS employees, if any left? As a matter of fact, I remember one of them telling me he had to switch his FERS retirement to a non-civil service type one or something?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 2:51:15 PM EDT
[#42]
Dude, I'll have you know that is a tooque on my head, not a towel. Big difference! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 3:09:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Ok, that got me interested... The wording on that poster is factually incorrect. There is no mention of "official purposes" anywhere in the law. And they omit several exclusions to the law. In fact, they go beyond the requirements of the law with this poster and add what is apparently someone's opinion. What the law requires is: (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be. This notice covers (a) and (b) then continues with some utter rubbish that whoever wrote it should be fired. The entire law looks like this: TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS HEADING Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities STATUTE (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. (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (c) A person who kills or attempts to kill any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113. (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. (e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (e)(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d). (f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building. (g) As used in this section: (1) The term ''Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties. (2) The term ''dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length. (3) The term ''Federal court facility'' means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States. (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be. A reasonable reading of this would be that according to section (d) if you have a lawful purpose to carry a gun, you would be ok - they would have to prove that you either had no purpose, or that the purpose was illegal. However, after a bit of research I would not bet anything on that interpretation. I didn't manage to find any case law (didn't look very hard though...) on that exact topic, but did find some case law on another section. Section (h): (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be. I have highlighted the appropriate part -- pretty clear isn't it? You absolutely will not be convicted under section (a) or (e) if no notice is posted. English even plainer than the second amendment. Well, if you think so, take a look at this. After a tortuous examination of the construction of the law and of the intent of congress, an appeals court comes to the conclusion that it actually means what it says. They then go on to say: In sum, our analysis of the language and structure of the statute favors treating subsection (h) as an affirmative defense. Moreover, the legislative history also supports our view and our position would not place an undue evidentiary burden on defendants. We are buoyed in this interpretation by the Ninth Circuit's similar holding, and believe that the Fifth Circuit's contrary position can be attributed to differences between the provision it considered and the one before us. Consequently, we hold that unless the defendant introduces evidence that notice of the federal law is lacking, the government, in a prosecution for the possession of firearms at federal facilities, need not prove that notice of the ban on such possession was posted conspicuously at the facility. and go ahead and uphold the conviction. Even in the face of the words: no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, So if you ever thought that the law means what it says in plain English, and that you can get true justice in a US court, I would advise you to think again. And even thought I think that if you have a legal purpose, such as concealed carry for personal protection, you are in fact allowed to carry in a post office, I would not recommend doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 3:29:14 PM EDT
[#44]
Do not skim this post!!! You must read it all or you could miss the important part and end up in jail!!!
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 3:36:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Key phrase..
Outa sight..outta mind  FREE |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 6:45:30 PM EDT
[#46]
www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/posters/pos158.pdf
Ignorance of the law is not a defense in court. That poster is present in every postal facility, including the lobby of every post office. Even if they couldn't charge you under 18 USC 930, which is what most people are saying - they could still charge you under 393 CFR 232.1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 6:51:00 PM EDT
[#47]
OK so the inside of my mailbox is federal property..
can I carry there?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 6:54:11 PM EDT
[#48]
I was in our Post Office today sending off some grips I had sold and they had a sign posted showing no firearms.
I love having the ability to CCW so I don't cross that line. I would HATE losing the right to go 95% of the places I go with my weapon. HH |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 7:07:47 PM EDT
[#49]
It's a well known fact that the keyboard commando lawyers of AR15.com have ZERO reading comprehension abilities.....
(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. Possesion of a Concealed weapons permit in a state that recognizes the right to self defense is other lawful purposes.  stop peddling the bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2005 7:45:26 PM EDT
[#50]
18 USC 930 covers all federal property. 39 CFR 232.1 covers the US Postal Service. Example 1: The federal AWB expired, allowing you to have all those evil things that Clinton didn't want you to have. NY state passed a law mirroring the AWB, which did not expire. End result - you cannot have a post ban weapon in NY State, because it is still not legal. Example 2: You can get a CCW in NY State. The CCW is not valid in NY City (unless you go through the NY City process to get their license). Once you have stepped onto federal property, you have left the state in which your CCW was issued, therefore it means nothing anyway. Even HR-218 (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act), which gives LEO's full carry everywhere, does not supercede the government's right to regulate or prohibit the carrying of firearms on government property. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
