Strange situation last nite.

[texasag93]

If the package shoot was full, then they may have been waiting for someone to put a package in and leave it.

personally, I would not excpect the postal s would watch over it.

[rkhal]

Could be there were stealing packages? This would be the logical season for it .

They could have been but I don't think so. The impression I got from both of them was that they had a legitimate reason to be there, particularly her. I don't know how to explain it but she had a kind of "this is my place" attitude rather than "I'm a guest here" attitude. That was why I initially thought she might actually be a postal employee. The other guy was more natural except for the fact that he was very busy doing nothing. Since they were pretending not to know each other I would expect a little apprehension from a woman alone with two or three strange men at night even if one was of as obviously sterling character as myself. She wasn't nervous at all. And like I said, they seemed to be busy but if you watched they were busy doing nothing. He was fascinated with the stamp machine for a while till he moved out of sight and she was stirring her boxes but not doing anything to them.

Just another of those little mysteries of life we all wonder about but never find the answer to.

[Rex B]

Aliens

[G-Ma]

Perhaps, if you had been wearing a Rolex and looking really rich, you would have found out what they were there for. At least, that's how it works in Houston.

[KBCraig]

The strange thing in all of this to me, is the notion of a 24 hour post office. Never seen such a thing out here in Podunk.

[MrsFosforos]

My first thought was they could have been homeless and staying in the PO to have a warm, dry place for the night. But then, all the erratic behavior makes that thought improbable.

[Photoman]

Contrary to what someone posted, carrying a handgun on postal property IS against the law.

Reminds me of the old saying....the only people out after midnight are cops and criminals.

[KBCraig]

Contrary to what someone posted, carrying a handgun on postal property IS against the law.

Cite, please.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when you make a statement of fact, especially in rebuttal to what someone else has said, you're obligated to back up your statement.

Kevin

[rkhal]

The strange thing in all of this to me, is the notion of a 24 hour post office. Never seen such a thing out here in Podunk.

It isn't truly a 24 hour post office --- It just ha an automated system for mailing packages after hours --- it weighs your package, prints out the postage and you drop your packages through a chute.

[pt145ss]

Contrary to what someone posted, carrying a handgun on postal property IS against the law.

Cite, please.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when you make a statement of fact, especially in rebuttal to what someone else has said, you're obligated to back up your statement.

Kevin

Is this what you are looking for? I'm a little confused about the last statement "or other lawful purposes."

US Code:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in
Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in
a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to
do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be
used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be
present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or
attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided
in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(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.

[Keith B]

Contrary to what someone posted, carrying a handgun on postal property IS against the law.

Cite, please.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when you make a statement of fact, especially in rebuttal to what someone else has said, you're obligated to back up your statement.

Kevin

Is this what you are looking for? I'm a little confused about the last statement "or other lawful purposes."

US Code:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in
Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in
a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to
do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be
used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be
present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or
attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or
attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided
in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(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.

I think 930(d)(3) says that it is OK. We are carrying for other lawful purposes.

[Photoman]

Contrary to what someone posted, carrying a handgun on postal property IS against the law.

Cite, please.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when you make a statement of fact, especially in rebuttal to what someone else has said, you're obligated to back up your statement.

Kevin

The search function is your friend. I've gone over this ad nauseam and wont do it again. I will caution, be sure you are reading the most current USC as changes were made this year regarding this subject.

[pt145ss]

The search function is your friend. I've gone over this ad nauseam and wont do it again. I will caution, be sure you are reading the most current USC as changes were made this year regarding this subject.

I did a search and found plenty of information...All of it was conflicting with each other...but plenty of information none the less. Please provide a link to the sepecific thread you are refering to so I can read it and see what the conclusion is.

Thanks.

[Photoman]

The search function is your friend. I've gone over this ad nauseam and wont do it again. I will caution, be sure you are reading the most current USC as changes were made this year regarding this subject.

I did a search and found plenty of information...All of it was conflicting with each other...but plenty of information none the less. Please provide a link to the sepecific thread you are refering to so I can read it and see what the conclusion is.

Thanks.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 7-4803.htm

Since this rule has not been adjudicated (to my knowledge), no one really knows exactly what it means. I think the intent is fairly clear, at least as clear as lawyers can be . Since more states are enacting concealed carry laws, they felt a need to clarify 39cfr232. In cases like this where there has been no adjudication, we have to come to our own conclusions and live with the consequences.

[pt145ss]

The search function is your friend. I've gone over this ad nauseam and wont do it again. I will caution, be sure you are reading the most current USC as changes were made this year regarding this subject.

I did a search and found plenty of information...All of it was conflicting with each other...but plenty of information none the less. Please provide a link to the sepecific thread you are refering to so I can read it and see what the conclusion is.

Thanks.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 ... 7-4803.htm

Since this rule has not been adjudicated (to my knowledge), no one really knows exactly what it means. I think the intent is fairly clear, at least as clear as lawyers can be . Since more states are enacting concealed carry laws, they felt a need to clarify 39cfr232. In cases like this where there has been no adjudication, we have to come to our own conclusions and live with the consequences.

Thank you. It seems to me that CHL holders can not carry in a post office...nor can they store their firearm in their vehicle (if it is in the post office parking lot) while at the post office conducting business.