Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/26/2002 9:58:14 PM EDT
With a ccw, in Colorado, I can pretty much carry anywhere (with some exceptions) but the one I do not understand it the restriction on the US Post Office. What's up with that? (seriously)
Link Posted: 10/26/2002 9:29:17 PM EDT
Dunno. It is called "concealed carry" for a reason.
Link Posted: 10/26/2002 10:24:35 PM EDT
I don't understand why it's there either, but it's in the CFR (code of federal regulations). Contrary to popular belief, it is not in the US Code so long as you are carrying for "lawful purposes." Personally, I don't worry too much about it. It also raises the question of how one goes about mailing a rifle/shotgun (which is legal to do, and done on a daily basis) without setting foot in a post office.
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 5:09:23 AM EDT
[url]http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-rtc-usps.html[/url] Concealed Carry in the Post Office by Robert P. Firriolo, Esq. “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.”
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 7:48:40 AM EDT
interesting, thanks for the link rkbar15!
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 7:51:15 AM EDT
I don't give a fuck about the PO or any other place for that matter! If there's no metal detecter... My weapon goes with me! Thank you and GOOD NITE!
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 12:01:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 1:26:27 PM EDT
Troy, R U agreeing with attorney Firriolo that if you are not in violation (one of the conditions he listed in his article) of your state CCW regulation then it is legal or are you saying it is not legal under any circumstances? TIA
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 3:33:55 PM EDT
I'm not so sure that I agree with the lawyer here. The CFR cannot be in CONFLICT with the USC (if it is, the USC trumps), but there is no "conflict" per se here. The CFR is consistent with the USC, but is slightly more restrictive (in that it lacks the "lawful purposes exception"). The legal issue here is whether the CFR may be more restrictive than the USC. This raises an intersting issue, and I will try to look into it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 4:55:26 PM EDT
Thanks DB. Steve, what is your opinion on this issue?
Link Posted: 11/2/2002 4:11:28 PM EDT
Any update? ^^^^^
Link Posted: 11/2/2002 5:26:34 PM EDT
what gets me is, having a CCW/carrying a pistol in the PO is illegal. i worked there for a little bit (until i got sick of the bullshit) and lots of people (management included) that work there could be considered criminals by definition.
Link Posted: 11/3/2002 2:13:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 9:49:25 PM EDT
rkbar15 is correct. A regulation cannot create a crime, nor define criminal conduct. A statutory exception cannot be "undone" by an unelected bureaucrat. Check your own state laws. If your CCW permit does not disallow carry in a federal facility, then you are OK. if it says no good, then you ain't lawful. But maybe you had a "lawful purpose" in carrying a gun to the post office anyway? Self-protection perhaps. So long as you are not there to commit a crime. Now who wants to get arrested and try that argument in federal court? You are still commiting a state crime, so it really doesnt much matter judge you are before.
Link Posted: 11/20/2002 3:26:21 PM EDT
dbrowne1: I emailed your question to the author of the article: Concealed Carry in the Post Office by Robert P. Firriolo, Esq. Will share his response (if I get one)
Link Posted: 11/21/2002 7:25:42 AM EDT
in the post office, the criminals are the ones behind the counter and in the offices. we should all carry when we go there, just in case...
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 2:38:45 PM EDT
So you are saying that your state issued CCW gives you a right to carry in federal facilities? You will not find this the case. Try and go into a federal courthouse, US dept of Labor etc. Hell the US Dept of Labor in DC wants all federal agents to check thier weapons at the door. Same with the US Capitol bldg, only thier officers are armed. The CFR cannot be in conflict with the USC, as was already mentioned. It can pronouce restrictions such as carrying in a USPS facility to be unlawful. In VA you can always leave it in the car for 5 mins. Can't do that in MA though, it's illegal to leave it in your car. Go figure
Link Posted: 11/25/2002 5:21:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LE6920: So you are saying that your state issued CCW gives you a right to carry in federal facilities? You will not find this the case. Try and go into a federal courthouse, US dept of Labor etc.
View Quote
Wrong. Go read the law. Courthouses have a separate subsection of the law. We're talking about other federal buildings here, specifically post offices.
In VA you can always leave it in the car for 5 mins. Can't do that in MA though, it's illegal to leave it in your car.
View Quote
Wrong again. When MA overhauled their gun laws in 1998, they accidentally left out the "no unattended guns in cars" part.
Link Posted: 11/29/2002 10:53:13 AM EDT
It doesn't matter what the Code of Federal Regulations says, violating a CFR is not a crime, I carry into the Post Office all the time, individuals cannot be arrested for violating the US Code because it has the exception, so forget their BS regulations.
Link Posted: 11/29/2002 6:07:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/29/2002 6:08:08 PM EDT by LE6920]
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
Originally Posted By LE6920: So you are saying that your state issued CCW gives you a right to carry in federal facilities? You will not find this the case. Try and go into a federal courthouse, US dept of Labor etc.
View Quote
Wrong. Go read the law. Courthouses have a separate subsection of the law. We're talking about other federal buildings here, specifically post offices.
In VA you can always leave it in the car for 5 mins. Can't do that in MA though, it's illegal to leave it in your car.
View Quote
Wrong again. When MA overhauled their gun laws in 1998, they accidentally left out the "no unattended guns in cars" part.
View Quote
Ok, let's see how many federal buildings you can waltz into. It's just not going to happen that way. Do you have any case law where the Postal Law Enforcement lost a carrying weapons case or vice versa? I am glad MA left that out of the laws, it did not use to be that way. So which federal buildings are going to let you carry??
Link Posted: 11/29/2002 6:10:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ctyatty: It doesn't matter what the Code of Federal Regulations says, violating a CFR is not a crime, I carry into the Post Office all the time, individuals cannot be arrested for violating the US Code because it has the exception, so forget their BS regulations.
View Quote
What about the states and jurisdictions that have statues against carrying on school grounds such as colleges etc? Are those BS also?
Link Posted: 11/30/2002 5:12:34 AM EDT
In before the "dumb and dumber" Lock!
Link Posted: 11/30/2002 6:01:18 AM EDT
Administrative regulations, state and federal, are not generally criminal violations. Crimes are defined by statutes, state and federal. USPS Postal Inspectors cannot arrest you for violating a regulation. They could impose administrative sanctions such as taking away your bulk mail permit or post office box lease or whatever. Crimes are set forth in the United States Code not the Code of Federal Regulations.
Link Posted: 12/3/2002 12:59:24 PM EDT
After researching the matter further, carrying into the post office violates US Code Title 18 section 930 which includes carrying to various federal facilities. You can be prosecuted.
Link Posted: 12/3/2002 2:09:14 PM EDT
18 United States Code Section 930(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 -- . . . (3)the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." So, carrying a shotgun to be lawfully mailed into a post office would be a "lawful purpose" and legal to do, as would the lawful carrying of a concealed weapon not otherwise in violation of statute with regard to a carry permit or otherwise. Don't trust legal matters to people with unknown qualifications. Go get a copy of the United States Code for yourself and ask a lawyer, especially one like me with 15 years of prosecutor experience. I worked hard for my law degree, worked hard getting elected as a prosecutor, I work hard every day obeying the law, and I carry a weapon into the post office across the street from my office almost every day.
Link Posted: 12/3/2002 3:41:18 PM EDT
Here is the question: Is a Post Office even really a Federal Building. If I remember correctly, the law defiens a federal building as one where Federal Employees are regularly present to do their work. But, as I understand it (though, I may be wrong) the Post Office was made into a private corporation years ago. Albeit still owned by the Government. Would postal employees, if it is a corporation and not a government agency then in fact not be federal employees and thus all post offices not be federal buildings. Anyone have any info. on whether USPS employees are considered federal employees ???
Link Posted: 12/3/2002 5:50:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ctyatty: 18 United States Code Section 930(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 -- . . . (3)the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." So, carrying a shotgun to be lawfully mailed into a post office would be a "lawful purpose" and legal to do, as would the lawful carrying of a concealed weapon not otherwise in violation of statute with regard to a carry permit or otherwise. Don't trust legal matters to people with unknown qualifications. Go get a copy of the United States Code for yourself and ask a lawyer, especially one like me with 15 years of prosecutor experience. I worked hard for my law degree, worked hard getting elected as a prosecutor, I work hard every day obeying the law, and I carry a weapon into the post office across the street from my office almost every day.
View Quote
It's good that you interpret that to mean that a state CCW doesn't violate that section of the USC, what about the CFR? Will all prosecutors feel the same way? I think not. DAs, AUSAs, and LEOs won't have a problem carrying into the USPS, but is this true of the average Joe? I mean clearly all these BS laws violate the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't stop prosecutors from prosecuting.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 5:58:24 AM EDT
39 United States Code § 201. "United States Postal Service There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service." The USPS is part of the federal government, its employees are employed by the federal government with the meaning of the statute.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 6:14:16 AM EDT
Unless your ccw has restrictions prohibiting carry in federal buildings (as I understand some states do), you are within the law as you are carrying lawfully. FWIW, 930 was implemented to insure that federal leos and prosecutors had their own laws to charge an individual illegally carring a weapon on federal property. Otherwise, they would not be able to arrest or prosecute under federal law and would be 1. dependant on the locals to arrest and charge a violator, and 2. leaving the defendant in the position of arguing state law did not apply. Unfortunately this section is often misinterpreted to mean that no guns period, are allowed in fed buildings.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 7:26:09 AM EDT
Law school is focused on teaching people to figure what the issue is, much more so than the answer. Answers can be researched. Some people just like to argue and never do focus on the issue. I just checked Westlaw, there are NO reported cases of anyone ever being prosecuted for carrying a gun in a federal facility (excluding court facilities which are covered by a different code section) who otherwise was conducting himself in a lawful manner. Threaten someone, illegally shoot someone, etc. and you're going to get charged with or without a CCW permit. And for the last time, it is NOT a crime to violate a USPS CFR.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 1:13:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ctyatty: Law school is focused on teaching people to figure what the issue is, much more so than the answer. Answers can be researched. Some people just like to argue and never do focus on the issue. I just checked Westlaw, there are NO reported cases of anyone ever being prosecuted for carrying a gun in a federal facility (excluding court facilities which are covered by a different code section) who otherwise was conducting himself in a lawful manner. Threaten someone, illegally shoot someone, etc. and you're going to get charged with or without a CCW permit. And for the last time, it is NOT a crime to violate a USPS CFR.
View Quote
There are plenty of federal buildings that are not the post office that you will not get into period. With or without a valid CCW. So why do those little "administrative rules" keep you from carrying at the other federal buildings in town. If you tried to just bully your way in you'd be charged for sure. So if a postal inspector asked you to leave the USPS and you refused because you can "ignore the CFR" while carrying, do you really think you will not be charged with all sorts of other offenses? Maybe that's why you didn't find any cases? And for the 75th time are you SURE it's ok to violate the CFR? [:d]
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 2:09:30 PM EDT
A government unit can promulgate rules governing behavior allowed or not allowed on premises under its control. This is really not much different than you being able to kick me out of your house if, for example, I insisted on urinating in the corner of your living room on the carpet. The United States Code doesn't define a right to enter with a firearm for a lawful purpose, it just doesn't make it a crime. Postal regulations also ban smoking, electioneering activities, unsafe driving in the parking lot, etc. You most certainly can violate a regulation. But that is very much different than committing a federal crime with prison time. A violation of a CFR could theoretically bring a whopping $50 civil administrative penalty (like a traffic ticket) or up to 30 days (however jail is totally unheard of). Also, the regulations require that the regulation itself (4 and a half single spaced pages on my computer) to be posted. The post office here doesn't have it posted, so there's another administrative enforcement issue to argue about, all part of the same picture, nobody really gives a crap of the CFR.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 4:01:23 PM EDT
ctyatty: Agreed. However, the only caveat is that (at least in NY) 930 is used as the justification to deny all weapons in fed buildings.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 4:24:59 PM EDT
ps here's a case for you: U.S. v. McArthur, C.A.11 (Ala.) 1997, 108 F.3d 1350. Here's some pending firearms legislation related to 930 issues (I deleted redundant and unrelated issues) some are quite interesting: 1 2001 CONG US S 2480, 107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. (May 08, 2002), Introduced in Senate, New section added by legislation. 2 2001 CONG US HR 4034, 107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, To extend Brady background checks to gun shows, and for other purposes. (Mar 20, 2002), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 3 2001 CONG US S 1996, 107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect citizens' rights under the Second Amendment to obtain firearms for legal use, and for other purposes. (Mar 07, 2002), Introduced in Senate, New section added by legislation. 4 2001 CONG US HR 3162, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. '(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by th (Oct 26, 2001), Enrolled Bill, Amended. 5 2001 CONG US HR 3162, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, '(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, or '(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the (Oct 24, 2001), Received in Senate, Amended. 6 2001 CONG US HR 3162, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. '(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by th (Oct 23, 2001), Introduced in House, Amended. 14 2001 CONG US S 1528, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To improve the safety and security of rail transportation. (Oct 10, 2001), Introduced in Senate, Referenced. 17 2001 CONG US HR 1007, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, (Report No. 107-193, Part I) To limit access to body armor by violent felons and to facilitate the donation of Federal surplus body armor to State and local law enforcement agencies. (Oct 05, 2001), Reported in House, New section added by legislation. 20 2001 CONG US S 1165, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To prevent juvenile crime, promote accountability by and rehabilitation of juvenile criminals, punish and deter violent gang crime, and for other purposes. '(aa) outside a metropolitan statistical area (as define (Jul 11, 2001), Introduced in Senate, New section added by legislation. 21 2001 CONG US HR 2377, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and to provide additional resources (Jun 28, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 22 2001 CONG US HR 2221, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To ban the import of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers, and to extend Brady background checks to gun shows. (Jun 19, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 34 2001 CONG US S 767, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To extend Brady background checks to gun shows, and for other purposes. (Apr 24, 2001), Introduced in Senate, New section added by legislation. 38 2001 CONG US S 514, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State. (Mar 12, 2001), Introduced in Senate, New section added by legislation. 39 2001 CONG US HR 950, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State. (Mar 08, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 41 2001 CONG US S 442, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms and to allow States to enter into compacts to recognize other States' concealed weapon (Mar 01, 2001), Introduced in Senate, New section added by legislation. 43 2001 CONG US HR 422, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To require ballistics testing of the firearms manufactured in or imported into the United States that are most commonly used in crime, and to provide for the compilation, use, and availability of ballistics inf (Feb 06, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 44 2001 CONG US HR 382, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and form (Jan 31, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 45 2001 CONG US HR 255, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To provide grant funds to units of local government that comply with certain requirements and to amend certain Federal firearms laws. (Jan 30, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation. 48 2001 CONG US HR 114, 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns. (Jan 03, 2001), Introduced in House, New section added by legislation.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 4:26:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Robertesq1: ctyatty: Agreed. However, the only caveat is that (at least in NY) 930 is used as the justification to deny all weapons in fed buildings.
View Quote
How can that be? Just look above "nobody really gives a crap about 930 and the CFR"
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 5:42:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/4/2002 5:43:17 PM EDT by ctyatty]
In U.S. v. McArthur, "the defendant Taneilian McArthur was involved in an argument with another man, Corey Smith, inside the Enlisted Men's Club at Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex. McArthur left the club first, retrieved his gun from the trunk of his car and placed it on the front seat. In the parking lot later that evening, McArthur pulled his car in front of Smith as Smith exited the club. Smith approached McArthur's car and McArthur shot him, allegedly in self-defense." This asshole is out drinking, gets into a beef and then gets his loaded handgun out of the trunk and have it handy when he ambushes another guy with his car. McArthur never even argued the applicability of the lawful use exception. Secondly, every base that I have ever been on has local orders on how personally owned firearms are transported and stored. You can be sure that the CO of that base did not allow loaded handguns in cars in the parking lot of the E-Club. I would have loved to have prosecuted this jerk.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 5:51:08 PM EDT
To: LE6920 Lots of lawyers, lots of opinions, you'll need to figure out your own comfort level. My discreet concealed carry makes the world a little safer. I've been viciously assaulted by criminals 3x and have drawn my weapon 2x in 20 years. I hope I never have to fire a shot, you can't take that bullet back once its down that tube ripping up flesh. But, my kids won't be without a father because I was too much of a pussy to try to defend my self.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 6:55:08 PM EDT
On a side note: 930 requires notice of its provisions to be clearly posted at every public entrance to a federal building. I have yet to see such notice posted at the public entrance of the Post Office. It is usually posted by the P.O. Boxes. The P.O. Boxes are not a "public entrance"...and therefore, the Post Office has not posted the required Public Notice in accordance with 930's provisions and therefore the lack of notice exception should also apply...
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 7:00:33 PM EDT
[b]TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 930. Sec. 930. - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities[/b] [b](a)[/b] 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](b)[/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. [b](c)[/b] 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. [b](d)[/b] Subsection (a) shall not apply to - [list] [b](1)[/b] 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; [b](2)[/b] 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 [b](3)[/b] the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. [/list] [b](e)[/b] [list] [b](1)[/b] 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. [b](2)[/b] Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d). [/list] [b](f)[/b] 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. [b](g)[/b] As used in this section: [list] [b](1)[/b] The term [b]"Federal facility"[/b] 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. [b](2)[/b] The term [b]"dangerous weapon"[/b] 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. [b](3)[/b] The term [b]"Federal court facility"[/b] 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. [/list] [b](h)[/b] 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.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 7:11:56 PM EDT
On another note: The defintition of "dangerous weapon" in 930 is so broad (any object readily capable of causing injury or death) that technically you are in possession of a half-dozen "dangerous weapons" at all times: 1) Your Hands, 2) Your Shoelaces, 3) Your Keys, 4) etc... Assuming, that this law really does prohibit carrying a "dangerous weapon" in a Post Office...the only way to comply would be to cut off your hands and feet, and enter naked. Assuming they decided that parts of your body don't count...you'd still have to enter naked as most articles of clothing can be used to strangle someone...
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 9:22:52 AM EDT
I think this proposed legislation is BS: 1 2001 CONG US S 2480, 107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. (May 08, 2002), Introduced in Senate. Former cops are no better than anyone else, there are a representative number of officers who are criminals. Locally we've had deputies, police officers and a state trooper get fired for among other things: murder, sexual abuse, growing marijuana, tipping off friends about raids and soliciting sexual favors during traffic stops. Its not systemic corruption, but it does mirror societies' ills, why people promote these retired law enforcement exemptions is beyond me.
Top Top