Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

[chuckybrown]

Found this on another board, forgive me if it's a re-post:

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/22/laws ... ce-gun-ban

I wish them luck, it sure would be nice to overturn this rule......

[RPB]

YAYYYY
First Post Offices, then acres and acres and acres of wild unpopulated land owned by USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) I hope; so I can fish, kayak and canoe safely without worrying about feral hog attacks on my life and having to say "I hear banjo music ... paddle faster."

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wish them luck too, but they sure played fast and loose with 18 U.S.C. 930(c) when they state The law cited by the Post Office creates an exception for “lawful carrying of firearms” for “other lawful purposes." NAGR left out two very important words "incident to." (The Code Section in question is quoted below.) The subpart (c) exception to the general rule against carrying firearms in federal facilities applies to firearms that are "incident to" lawful hunting or other lawful purposes. We can replace the words "incident to" with "necessary for" and you get a clearer picture.

Firearms are required for hunting (except bow season) unless you are really really fast and can run down your prey and stab it, so they are "incident to" lawful hunting. The same cannot be said for a CHL carrying in a post office. Having a gun on your side is not "incident to" any other lawful purpose such as buying stamps, shipping a package, checking a PO box, or anything else you're going to do in a post office. Some have argued that you are carrying it "incident to" lawful self-defense, but this argument fails because you are not engaged in self-defense when you walk into a Post Office. You are prepared to engage in self-defense if attacked, but you are not engaged in the act of self-defense when you enter the post office. The only way 18 U.S.C. 930(c) would apply is if you are attacked and flee into a PO with your handgun. Then you are actively engaged in the lawful act of self-defense.

The best argument will be Heller's recognition of the Second Amendment as an individual right and its dicta noting that self-defense is a natural and constitutionally protected right.

There is a great lesson for all activists; don't overstate our case and don't exaggerate the opposition's position. Doing so not only deceives "our people," it hurts our credibility to the vast majority of Americans who are not members of the NRA or the Brady Campaign. I have won a lot of trials because I caught a witness in a lie or an exaggeration. Once you show a jury they can't be trusted, you've taken a giant step toward winning the case, even if the facts are less than favorable for your client.

Chas.

(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

(Emphasis added).

[mbw]

(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

(Emphasis added).

So, if I understand your interpretation of the statue- “or other lawful purposes” does not cover being licensed by the state to carry a firearm under CHL. I totally agree that the “Hunting” phrase would not apply to CHL, but I fail to understand why the “Other Lawful Purposes” does not apply to an activity that the state has said that is in fact, lawful.

I realize that you are an attorney and I am not, but to me the “or” in the phrase says that if your activity is otherwise lawful, then it should be allowed and would not be a crime. Carrying under CHL is not by itself, an unlawful act.

Help me out here. What would be an example of "other lawful purposes"?

[Beiruty]

mbw,
If one takes the statement: “or other lawful purposes” in the absolute then,
I guess, in any other state where open carry is lawful, one then can open carry lawfully, since he is breaking no law and thus all can carry in Post Office. Sometimes, exceptions are great loopholes and can be exploited.

Also, note there is no ";" before the “or other lawful purposes”. So it is as if you say incident to hunting or incident to other lawful purposes.

[flintknapper]

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

We can replace the words "incident to" with "necessary for" and you get a clearer picture.

Good catch. Even with your excellent suggestion....it makes me wonder if the word "necessary" might ultimately be challenged. I am sure there is a DA somewhere who wouldn't consider my back-up gun "necessary"....(or some other such nonsense).

Perhaps better to just leave at it "For".

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility FOR hunting or other lawful purposes

[old farmer]

YAYYYY "I hear banjo music ... paddle faster."

[RPB]

YAYYYY "I hear banjo music ... paddle faster."

Yeah, we wear certain shirts kayaking, depending on location
LCRA property:


and
USACE Property

From http://www.paddling.net/store/showTops. ... fer=nl1124
I have no affiliation, I just kayak n stuff.

[b322da]

...There is a great lesson for all activists; don't overstate our case and don't exaggerate the opposition's position. Doing so not only deceives "our people," it hurts our credibility to the vast majority of Americans who are not members of the NRA or the Brady Campaign. I have won a lot of trials because I caught a witness in a lie or an exaggeration. Once you show a jury they can't be trusted, you've taken a giant step toward winning the case, even if the facts are less than favorable for your client....

Chas.

So true, Chas. I have noticed, and occasionally noted publicly here, the poor choice of words here on the forum occasionally which ignore your wise counsel. When I do this I fully expect, and generally receive, slaps on the wrist.

How counterproductive this is to our efforts. I actually went so far some time ago to maintain a compilation of such comments, with the intention of posting the list here and asking the readers to think about how happily it might used by our opponents, even if not used out of context. Of course I concluded this would be a bad idea, given the likelihood that the list would be exposed to the other side. I sometimes cringe at the thought of our opponents on our critical 2A issue monitoring this forum.

Reading the results of a Texas trial just this morning I am once again reminded of the unalterable rule I put in place at my firm back in the day: "At all times assume that anything you put on the Internet will be read by the whole world."

Your words of wisdom are eagerly read and appreciated, Chas.

Elmo

[KD5NRH]

Some have argued that you are carrying it "incident to" lawful self-defense, but this argument fails because you are not engaged in self-defense when you walk into a Post Office. You are prepared to engage in self-defense if attacked, but you are not engaged in the act of self-defense when you enter the post office.

Am I only "engaged in hunting" when I pull the trigger, or when I'm walking through the woods looking for game as well? Condition yellow indicates actively watching for threats, so it would seem to be "engaging in self defense."

[Crusader31]

This is an interesting topic and the law suit may solve the problem. My solution is to just not go to
the post office. Buy your stamps online. They will come in the mail. If you're reading this you probably
have internet access. Ship your packages UPS, FedEx, etc. They will even come to your door and pick
them up. I once banked at a bank that prohibited customers from carrying legally concealed weapons. No
problem, changed banks.

When the CHL first passed here in Texas Wolf Camera put signs in their windows. They weren't the legal
signs but the intent was clear. I, and others, wrote the President of Wolf Camera. The signs came down
and we all received several booklets for free phot developing.

Legal challenges are good, legal activism is good. Don't put yourself at risk. Stay out of the post office and
let the know they are losing your business. Perhaps an entity already deeply in the red might take another
look at this policy.

[sjfcontrol]

I wonder if the lawsuit will outlast the USPS? They have been of questionable usefulness for some time. NOBODY mails letters anymore. Few people receive or pay bills by mail. It's just a way to deliver junk you don't want anyway.

[C-dub]

I'm still curious how someone could be actively engaged in hunting in a PO. Even after Charles' explanation of "incident to" I still don't see the distinction between hunting and defending one's self in a PO. Saying that no one goes into a PO actively defending themselves can also be said of hunting. What would I be actively hunting in a PO?

[mbw]

I'm still curious how someone could be actively engaged in hunting in a PO. Even after Charles' explanation of "incident to" I still don't see the distinction between hunting and defending one's self in a PO. Saying that no one goes into a PO actively defending themselves can also be said of hunting. What would I be actively hunting in a PO?

Section 18 U.S.C. concerns any Federal facility, not just Post Offices. I believe it is also is the statue that the COE uses to enforce no firearms on lakes under their control.

[C-dub]

Oh, I'm not disputing that is illegal, but I don't understand the exception as Charles explained it.

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes

How can one be actively engaged in hunting while inside a PO? My point is that no one can be actively engaged in hunting any more than one can actively be engaged in self defense in a PO. And actually, after thinking about it for a few seconds, the need to defend one's self would be much more plausible than hunting in a PO.