Judicial -- 2 Gun-Related Decisions by the 5th Circuit

[SA-TX]

Postal Employee's Conviction Upheld for Gun in Vehicle

Get it straight from the source: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The states served by this circuit are Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. He was convicted for violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations -- the rules promulgated under a statute but not the statute itself. This is precedent, at least for limited purposes (see the footnote on page 1 of the opinion).

It appears that he was an employee who had a gun in his vehicle parked on Postal Service property.

The penalty wasn't addressed but it appears that the penalty is a fine of not more than $50 or more than 30 days in jail (!). See http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/ ... r232.1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

==================
Conviction under Texas' "Assault of a Family Member" statute Not a Disqualification for Purchase

See http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the final paragraph:

"


Hagen moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that he was



convicted for “assault of a family member” under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1)



and (b)(2) which he argues does not qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic



violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). The district court granted the motion.



The district court relied on this court’s ruling in United States v. Villegas-



Hernandez,1 in deciding to not follow United States v. Shelton.2 We agree with


the district court and AFFIRM the dismissal of the indictment."

[Keith B]

Thanks for the post SA-TX. This ruling setting precedence should be the nail in the coffin for any federal property questions about having a gun. When I have to send something USPS, have always used the quickie-mail places instead if I am carrying.

[longtooth]

Agree & for those that say "concealed is concealed" all that has to happen is someone back in to your vehicle while on the parking lot, you do the same, be witness to a wreck on the lot, witness a fall & major injury,...
Any of these may get you asked for id & then you are required to show chl.
Take a chance on not showing you decide.

It can happen.

[joe817]

Good info SA-TX, thanks for posting! It definitely closes the discussion of post office carry.

[C-dub]

Good info SA-TX, thanks for posting! It definitely closes the discussion of post office carry.

I'm not so sure. What about myself, who is not a USPS employee, leaving my weapon in my car in the public accessible lot before going inside to conduct business? This person was an employee and had parked within what is usually a fenced area at most post offices have that is not for the general public to park in when visiting the post office. Is it clear? I'm not saying I would challenge this to see what the results would be, but I see differences.

[joe817]

Good info SA-TX, thanks for posting! It definitely closes the discussion of post office carry.

I'm not so sure. What about myself, who is not a USPS employee, leaving my weapon in my car in the public accessible lot before going inside to conduct business? This person was an employee and had parked within what is usually a fenced area at most post offices have that is not for the general public to park in when visiting the post office. Is it clear? I'm not saying I would challenge this to see what the results would be, but I see differences.

Apparently this extends to ALL persons on Federal Property(which a post office is).

Google: 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)

The way I'm reading it that the regs includes parking lots. But that's my read on it. YMMV.

[Jeff B.]

This should be another nail in the coffin of the perpetually deficit running Post Office, as any sane CHL holder will avoid the Post Office Building (like most have) and the parking lot (maybe not so much?) like the plague.

If you have to use the mail, leave it in you box for pick up and otherwise, us FEDEX.

Jeff B.

[ELB]

... This ruling setting precedence should be the nail in the coffin for any federal property questions about having a gun.

I believe this was officially an "unpublished" opinion, which as I recall do not set legal precedents. Eugene Volokh seems to imply that in his post here: http://volokh.com/2009/10/16/government ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; altho he says they can be influential when there is not much published law on the matter.

As a practical matter, it will take some house-cleaning in Congress and the White House, and then ultimately in the Judiciary to fix this properly. (There are some reports the Demos are going to try to stuff as many pet federal judges into the system as possible before they get the boot in 2010 -- they stiff armed Bush on lots of appointments, and the Republicans failed to do anything about it. Now there are many vacancies, plus apparently some plans to add judge positions to some of the circuit courts so as to put more left-leaning judges, with life-time appointments, to foil any attempt by future Republican or Tea Party legislators and Presidents to roll back the crap that's being put in place now...)

[A-R]

On Longtooth's very good point about "what if ..." you are forced to show ID in a USPS parking lot, would a local traffic cop have jurisdiction to charge you with this federal crime? Would most traffic cops bother with this (meaning might he/she look the other way)? Would a federal agent necessarily become involved with a fender bender in a USPS parking lot, like a postal inspector etc?Is there a fed/postal reg requiring a federal LEO presence for a fender bender in a USPS parking lot?

Seems to me even if the unlikely happens and you're asked for ID in USPS parking lot, that still doesn't guarantee you'll be arrested for violation of this Fed statute.

Thoughts?

[ELB]

I can't quite get my mind around the train of logic that says you might be brave enough to flout federal regulation by carrying a gun at the post office, yet if by some odd chance a peace officer asked you for an ID, you would feel compelled to show your CHL. Number one, in for a penny, in for a pound. Number two, the legislature made it quite clear that not showing your CHL is no big deal. Just like there is no penalty for local governments (and those who lease government property) sticking up 30.06 signs on places they shouldn't (and we rightfully ignore that nonsense), there is no penalty for keeping it in your wallet should the circumstances dictate. Yes, concealed is concealed.