TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).

Correct. The problem is that Texas, for CHL eligibility purposes, will consider it a Class B misdemeanor since jail time is a possible penalty. This will cost a CHL their license for 5 to 7 years.

Chas.

I wonder if, in order to get a conviction under the controlling statute for the CFR, there would have to be notice requirements. There ARE explicitly in 18 USC 930, as there should be, since it's a felony. As a practical matter it is low on my list of concerns, since I've yet to hear of marauding AUSA's prosecuting $50 tickets.

Driving through GFSZA zones w/o a CHL, or outside of Texas, or by off duty out of state LEO, is much more concerning.

The statutorily-required signs must be on buildings ("facilities") and I'm pretty sure on property outside buildings. I represented a NASA engineer who had a handgun in his car in the parking lot and they wanted to go after him, but that pesky sign requirement was a problem.

Chas.

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

18 USC 930 is the controlling law for the buildings, but not the PROPERTY. The law for PROPERTY is buried in the CFR (I looked it up before once) and is the same law for illegally posting handbills on a PO property. Key point is that max penalty is a $50 fine and possible 30 days. As a practical matter leaving in the car is not a high risk. Certainly not as high as driving through a GFSZ when out of state (felony).

Correct. The problem is that Texas, for CHL eligibility purposes, will consider it a Class B misdemeanor since jail time is a possible penalty. This will cost a CHL their license for 5 to 7 years.

Chas.

Although I wish the lawsuit had been a success, I hope the 10th Circuit's decision puts to rest the erroneous claim that 18 U.S.C 930 makes it legal for a CHL to carry a handgun in a post office (or anywhere on PO property). That has never been the case and my fear was that someone would believe the claim and be convicted as a result.

Chas.

The Post Office suit was lost in the 10th Circuit. The PO can ban firearms both in the buildings and parking lots. TAB BONIDY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, Plaintiffs - Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; PATRICK DO-NAHOE, Postmaster General; MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colo-rado, Defendants - Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391

Chas.

MeMelYup wrote:Could the outcome of Palmer vs D.C. Have an effect on this? http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/image ... .order.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, not yet if at all. This is a decision by a federal district court. It's a very good decision, but it needs to be upheld by the DC Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court. Even if the SCOTUS upholds the decision, it will likely hold that some restrictions are constitutional. Heller noted that some restrictions will be constitutional, including excluding firearms from "sensitive" locations. The question will be how much deference is given to decisions by Congress and governmental agencies.

Chas.

switch wrote:If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.

You want to equate preparation for an activity with engaging in the activity. They are distinctly different actions.

Being prepared to defend yourself is not "engaging in self-defense." I have a fire extinguisher in my home, but I'm not engaged in fighting a fire "24-7." I'm not engaging in fighting a fire until I pull the pin and start putting out a fire. I have anti-acid in my medicine cabinet in case I need it, but I'm not engaging in treating heartburn "24-7."

Chas.

thetexan wrote:You guys are getting 232 mixed up with 930 again. The post office has it's own rule superseding 930 covering general federal facilities. You can't carry a firearm into a post office and it has nothing to do with being incident to hunting which is found only and applicable to general federal facilities. There is really nothing to debate about post offices. 232 is clear.

Tex

I'm not getting anything mixed up. I'm discussing 18 USC 930 because it's routinely cited as authority to carry in a post office. The problem with trying to extend the incident to hunting or any other lawful activity is faulty for the reasons I stated, regardless of the type of federal property at issue. You discussed 930 also.

Chas.

switch wrote:I disagree. If you only carried at the PO, then you'd need some reason to justify carrying for self-defense only then.

If you carry all the time and a gun is obviously incident to self-defense, then there needs to be some reason that a PO is substantially safer than everywhere else you go.

Now you are saying the legality of carrying in a post office depends upon whether you carry outside a post office. There's absolutely no legal justification for that contention. Federal law does not depend upon your activities outside federal facilities/property.

Chas.

switch wrote:I'd say self defense is immediate and I do intend to shoot someone - to preserve my life or anothers. Granted, I may not need a hand gun (just like I may not need a rifle -- if I don't see a deer), but I am looking for a deer and will need a rifle then, I am looking for someone to attack and will need a gun then.

We tell students, if you only carry when you think you will need it, you better be good at predicting the future. :)

It's called "hunting" rather than "getting" because you may or may not take game. You are hunting from the time you start the precess on federal property. The firearm is a required tool in order to hunt, therefore it is being used "incident to hunting," even is you never fire a shot or even see a game animal.

You are not engaging in self-defense when you enter a post office to conduct business. The fact that self-defense may be necessary while there, albeit so unlikely as to be statistically nonexistent, doesn't change the fact that you did not enter the post office to engage in self-defense. The only possible way that "self-defense" argument would fly is if you were attacked while off post office property, then fled into the post office for help or cover.

Chas.

thetexan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:I know that but Im not aware (doesnt mean it hasnt happened) that that part of the statute has been tried and appealed to determine what the appellate ruling on what the interpretation of 'other lawful purposes' is.

tex

Apparently my comments have been misunderstood. I'm not saying the only exception is related to hunting. The plain language of the statue requires that the firearm be "incident to" some "other lawful activity." Hunting is expressly cited in the statute as an exception with the phrase "incident to hunting or other lawful activity." That's why I use hunting as an example of the firearm being incident to (a/k/a required in order to conduct the activity) the "other lawful activity."

The most common theory I hear in an attempt to apply this exception to a CHL carrying in a post office is that carrying a handgun is "incident to self-defense." Being armed means we are prepared to defend ourselves if necessary, but we are engaged in the act of self-defense until we are attacked and are dealing with our assailant. A gun is not a required tool to walk into a post office to buy stamps, mail a package or check a post office box, so it is not "incident to" any of those action. Since we are not under attack, then we are not engaged in self-defense, thus the firearm is not "incident to lawful self-defense."

I wish the express language of the statute was otherwise, but it isn't. I hope a court will rule that the exception is broader than the language of the statute, but until that day comes, I'll still tell every one of my CHL students that it is unlawful to carry in a Post Office.

Chas.

Thank you Charles for the vigorous debate,

. . .

If we stick with 930 it is clear interpretively and contextually that to whatever degree and relationship 'incident to' has to 'hunting' is the same degree and relationship 'incident to' has to 'other lawful activities'. If one can carry a hunting rifle into a federal facility because it use is incident to hunting then I can carry a concealed handgun because it is incident to self-defense. In both cases, hunting and self-defense, reference future activities and do not occur at the time of the carriage into the facility.[/i

I respectfully disagree. You are trying to focus on an element of timing or immediacy that is not in the statute. The only way your argument would hold is if the act of "hunting" occurs only when you are aiming and/or firing your weapon at prey. Furthermore, when you enter the federal area with a firearm for the purpose of hunting, then it is your intent to engage in the permitted activity. When you enter a federal facility with a self-defense handgun, you are not entering for the purpose of self-defense and you have no intention of shooting anyone to preserve your life.

thetexan wrote:. . . My privilege of carrying a concealed handgun does not compel me to carry it for any particular reason. I might carry it because I need something on the right side of my belt as a counterweight for the iphone on the left side of my belt. Carrying for a counterweight is another lawful purpose, therefore it is incident to that other lawful purpose. But there is no requirement that the purpose be instant.

This is circular reasoning in the extreme and it would fail in any court. You are saying that carrying a handgun is incident to carrying a handgun. The 18 USC 930 exception requires that possessing the firearm be "incident to" some other lawful activity. According to your argument, a Texas CHL could carry a handgun in every federal facility because it is legal to carry that handgun outside of federal facilities. You would nullify the prohibitive provisions in the code that make the exceptions necessary. Again, this is fatally flawed circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning aside, your example of using a handgun as a counterweight fails the "incident to" element because, as you previously agreed, that a phrase means the firearm is a necessary element of the activity. You could counterbalance your cell phone with many things other than a firearm.

Chas.

thetexan wrote:I know that but Im not aware (doesnt mean it hasnt happened) that that part of the statute has been tried and appealed to determine what the appellate ruling on what the interpretation of 'other lawful purposes' is.

tex

Apparently my comments have been misunderstood. I'm not saying the only exception is related to hunting. The plain language of the statue requires that the firearm be "incident to" some "other lawful activity." Hunting is expressly cited in the statute as an exception with the phrase "incident to hunting or other lawful activity." That's why I use hunting as an example of the firearm being incident to (a/k/a required in order to conduct the activity) the "other lawful activity."

The most common theory I hear in an attempt to apply this exception to a CHL carrying in a post office is that carrying a handgun is "incident to self-defense." Being armed means we are prepared to defend ourselves if necessary, but we are engaged in the act of self-defense until we are attacked and are dealing with our assailant. A gun is not a required tool to walk into a post office to buy stamps, mail a package or check a post office box, so it is not "incident to" any of those action. Since we are not under attack, then we are not engaged in self-defense, thus the firearm is not "incident to lawful self-defense."

I wish the express language of the statute was otherwise, but it isn't. I hope a court will rule that the exception is broader than the language of the statute, but until that day comes, I'll still tell every one of my CHL students that it is unlawful to carry in a Post Office.

Chas.

switch wrote:OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?

Yes, it would make all the difference in the world. "Incident to" means it must be an integral part of the activity.

Chas.

Sure, I'll make it a sticky until the case is over.

Chas.

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.

Katygunnut wrote: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.