Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

[ryanj]

This case is going to the 10th circuit court of appeals. Oral arguments will be heard in October according to the court calendar.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[thetexan]

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,

I, like you, will still tell my students that the post office is prohibited. My main argument in my first two posts on this subject dealt with federal facilities. I didnt really address post offices since I believe the post office statute supersedes the federal facility statute as it pertains to the post office as a federal facility. This debate is really academic but is a useful learning tool for everyone who wishes to dissect statutes, their interpretation and application. You stated that the carriage of a concealed handgun is not incident to buying stamps or other post office activity. Nor is a hunting rifle incident to buying stamps. But here again we are cross pollinating between two different statutes...18USC930 which applies to federal facilities in general and 39USC410 which deals with post offices exempts them from the provisions of 39USC410. This allows 39CFR232 to have supersedence over 930.

The confusion for many, I believe, is the attempt to stuff the square 39CFR232 post office peg into the round 18USC930 federal facility hole. 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. Even if we deal with apples and oranges such as 232 and 930 and assume the argument, regarding a post office, that a hunting rifle is ok due to its incidence to hunting we could also argue that it, however, has no incidence to buying stamps. The same logic would apply to any other lawful purpose such as wearing a concealed handgun for the purpose of, say, target practice. 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. As with carrying a hunting rifle for a purpose that is obviously to take place at some time either past or future, it is certainly not intended to be incident to hunting NOW while in the post office. Nor is a concealed handgun incident to any lawful purpose which will occur NOW while in the post office. It too, was or will be incident to some past or future lawful purpose. Unless of course, a madman opens fire while in the post office then the purpose becomes NOW in the present. Enough of the hypothetical of applying 930 to post offices. Let's go back to separating 232 from 930 with 410 as the referee.

In 930 we have two identical, and I mean IDENTICAL, purposes...hunting and other lawful. Whatever applies to one applies to the other. Or, else, they would have to somehow be found to be different parametrically and characteristically. I have laid out my reasoning why I believe they are not in the previous posts. Therefore, even though I do not have the funds to become a test subject, I firmly believe that for whatever reason I am allowed to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon incident to hunting into a federal facility, I am also, for the exact same reason, allowed to carry that same firearm or dangerous weapon into a federal facility because it is incident to any other lawful activity, self-defense (which as I pointed out earlier, Congress defined specifically as a lawful activity in other code not specific to the section in which it is found), paper weight, counter weights, target shooting, demonstrations and the like.

That's 930 and general federal facilities.

39CFR232 is another animal and the argument there is utterly simple. It prohibits explosives, firearms and other dangerous weapons on to postal property.......period. And 410 makes it unreachable and superior to 930.

I believe we all know better than to test our theories in this area. But these mind exercises make us better readers and interpreters of the statutes that govern us. By the way, what a great service you have provided with this forum and your work with gun legislation.

Thank you,
tex

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

. . . 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.

[switch]

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. :)

[mojo84]

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. :)

Not sure I follow your point. So, a handgun is needed to check the mail or to mail something? That is the point of going to the post office. You don't go there for the purpose of self-defense.

[ryanj]

I don't know anyone who can reliably predict when some crazy is going to start shooting at them, or when someone is going to try to rob/rape/assault/kill them.

The post office rule though makes you jump through hoops unnecessarily. It would probably be fine if they let you keep the gun in the car, while you entered the hallowed halls of Uncle Sam's finest turtles. This way you won't even have to park far away to go to the post office.

[switch]

It would be fine if they had lockers for you to lock up your gun AND had armed guards for your protection.

[switch]

Not sure I follow your point. So, a handgun is needed to check the mail or to mail something? That is the point of going to the post office. You don't go there for the purpose of self-defense.

I carry a gun 'incident' to self-defense. I carry while shopping at Walmart, while driving, while pumping gas at Exxon/Mobil, while sitting in church, on date night at Chili's,.... If I knew no postal employee was going to go postal while I was mailing a letter, I 'could' leave it in the car. Course, that would be more dangerous - any ten year old w/a brick could steal it and every time I handle it (un-holster, re-holster) I run the risk of having a negligent discharge.

A gun is needed for self-defense. My self-defense concerns may vary by location and activity. There are a lot of places I feel safer in/at than a US Post Office. Home, for instance, I still carry at home.

[mojo84]

I'm not saying I agree with the law. Nor am i saying the P.O. is safe and one doesn't need to be prepared there. However, your argument doesn't justify the contention it is legal to carry at the P.O. because the handgun is incident to checking the mail or mailing a package. The fact you carry elsewhere and at home has nothing g to do with this discussion.

[switch]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

Is it your contention that it is legal to carry into the post office then?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.