Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

[C-dub]

Charles, I totally believe you and have no doubt that I would end up in Club Fed if I were caught carrying a handgun in a post office. The part I'm confused about is the difference between hunting and self defense. Are you saying that I could carry a rifle into a post office to buy some stamps or pick up a package that required a signature and I would be legal? Would I have to prove that I was going hunting when the police showed up? I'm not going to do this, but I'm trying to understand the logic here.

No, I'm saying you cannot carry any firearm or dangerous weapon into a Post Office. You cannot hunt in a Post Office so the "hunting" exception is not applicable to Post Offices.

Chas.

Okay. I must have misunderstood before. I thought it was said that a rifle was an exception because it was "incident to" hunting, but I couldn't figure out how one could be hunting in a post office.

[C-dub]

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.

This bold part is why I thought that.

[KD5NRH]

You cannot hunt in a Post Office so the "hunting" exception is not applicable to Post Offices.

Until they stop moving the stamp machine to a different hidden corner every few months, I have no choice but to hunt every time I go to the post office.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You cannot hunt in a Post Office so the "hunting" exception is not applicable to Post Offices.

Until they stop moving the stamp machine to a different hidden corner every few months, I have no choice but to hunt every time I go to the post office.

[Jasonw560]

Here's something interesting I found by a little digging. Sorry, but it's a little long.

39 USC 410 - Sec. 410. Application of other laws

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.
And then, a little further down:
(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:
(1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records
about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102
(employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise
handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment
of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination;
right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and
conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or
employment taxes), and section 5532 (!1) (dual pay) of title 5,
except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section
shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made
applicable;

(2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States; (emphasis mine)

If this first one says that the property of the post office isn't Federal (per se), And the provisions of Title 18 are specific (Title 18, Chapter. 63, mail fraud, and then the chapters on Fed. employees), then IMO, the PO would not be a federal agency under 930.

Also, I found this, which is kind of like the 46.035 and the 30.06 laws here in TX.

TITLE 39 - POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER I - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

SUBCHAPTER D - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

PART 232 - CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY

232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to (i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use; (ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalk

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

[Charles L. Cotton]

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

If a state makes unlawfully carrying a handgun (whether or not in a post office) a felony, then the federal statute cannot be used as a quasi defense to reduce the violation to a misdemeanor.

I have no opinion as to whether postal property is "federal" property, except that it is my understanding that the Postal Service is a hybrid entity.

Chas.

[Jasonw560]

If a state makes unlawfully carrying a handgun (whether or not in a post office) a felony, then the federal statute cannot be used as a quasi defense to reduce the violation to a misdemeanor.

I have no opinion as to whether postal property is "federal" property, except that it is my understanding that the Postal Service is a hybrid entity.

Chas.

Wouldn't the reverse also be true, then? If a state makes lawful carry of a handgun, then the federal statute can't be used as a felony?

I'm just a goofy paramedic, but doesn't "abrogate" mean "to nullify"?

And 39, sec. 410 states (again) that no Federal law dealing with property "shall apply to the exercise to the powers of the Post Office".

IANAL, or a bureaucrat (thank baby Jesus), but that seems pretty cut and dried.

[Katygunnut]

Charles,

This has been asked a couple times in this thread, but I have not seen an answer. If I can carry a handgun as long as it is "incident to" an otherwise lawful activity that I would do in that location, then wouldn't the following logic hold up?

A. Carrying a gun is incident to the activity of concealed carry

B. Concealed carry is an otherwise lawful activity in that location (assume a valid CHL, etc)

Therefore, my conclusion would be that I can carry a concealed handgun which is incident to my otherwise lawful activity of carrying concealed in that location.

I'm sure something is missing here. Not challenging, just curious to see where this line of thought breaks down.

Thanks!

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

This has been asked a couple times in this thread, but I have not seen an answer. If I can carry a it won't handgun as long as it is "incident to" an otherwise lawful activity that I would do in that location, then wouldn't the following logic hold up?

A. Carrying a gun is incident to the activity of concealed carry

B. Concealed carry is an otherwise lawful activity in that location (assume a valid CHL, etc)

Therefore, my conclusion would be that I can carry a concealed handgun which is incident to my otherwise lawful activity of carrying concealed in that location.

I'm sure something is missing here. Not challenging, just curious to see where this line of thought breaks down.

Thanks!

In essence, this would be saying that "I'm carrying a handgun incident to carrying a handgun." It's circular reasoning and it won't work in court. Plus, carrying a handgun in a Post Office is not a lawful activity, so your presumption in subpart B is invalid. You would not be "carrying a gun . . . incident to" a lawful activity in a Post Office.

It is a two-step inquiry.

• Question 1: Is the activity you want to do in the post office legal? ("other lawful activity")
  Question 2: Is a firearm required for this activity? ("incident to").

If the answer to either question is "no," then the exception in 18 U.S.C. 930(4)(3) is not available.

Chas.

[Pawpaw]

Charles,

I'm not being argumentative either. I recognize, respect and acknowledge your years of service and experience. Still, the thought games are interesting.

It is a two-step inquiry.

• Question 1: Is the activity you want to do in the post office legal? ("other lawful activity")
  
  Yes! I want to lawfully exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms
  
  Question 2: Is a firearm required for this activity? ("incident to").
  
  Yes! It's rather difficult to "bear arms" unless you have a firearm.

If the answer to either question is "no," then the exception in 18 U.S.C. 930(4)(3) is not available.

Chas.

Again, just a mental exercise.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If a state makes unlawfully carrying a handgun (whether or not in a post office) a felony, then the federal statute cannot be used as a quasi defense to reduce the violation to a misdemeanor.

I have no opinion as to whether postal property is "federal" property, except that it is my understanding that the Postal Service is a hybrid entity.

Chas.

Wouldn't the reverse also be true, then? If a state makes lawful carry of a handgun, then the federal statute can't be used as a felony?

The short answer is no. The section you point out deals with penalties, so the language is applicable to penalties. If it applied in the broader context as you suggest, then it would have the effect of saying that the federal statute would defer to state law even as to whether or not conduct was unlawful. In other words, the federal statute would defer to state law.

It's also noteworthy that the language you point out also does not "abrogate any other federal laws . . ." Thus it does not protect anyone from the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 930 that prohibits possession of firearms in federal facilities.

Chas.

[Jasonw560]

Okay. I can see that. I won't play any more "what ifs'. Maybe there will be a quick end to this law suit and we can see what the "experts" say on the matter.

[lrb111]

Maybe I missed it, has a date been set to hear this case?

[Jasonw560]

Charles,

I'm not being argumentative either. I recognize, respect and acknowledge your years of service and experience. Still, the thought games are interesting.

It is a two-step inquiry.

• Question 1: Is the activity you want to do in the post office legal? ("other lawful activity")
  
  Yes! I want to lawfully exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms
  
  Question 2: Is a firearm required for this activity? ("incident to").
  
  Yes! It's rather difficult to "bear arms" unless you have a firearm.

If the answer to either question is "no," then the exception in 18 U.S.C. 930(4)(3) is not available.

Chas.

Again, just a mental exercise.

It's the Federal government. The Constitution does not apply in this case.

[Jasonw560]

Maybe I missed it, has a date been set to hear this case?

On Friday (12/18), the Feds submitted a motion to dismiss the case. I can't copy and paste at work, so I will C&P the link tonight with all the legalese in tact.