Strange situation last nite.

[DoubleJ]

but IF you do, AND they find out, well, it'll cost you $50 for violating their RULE (not law).

you do as you feel best.

[pt145ss]

but IF you do, AND they find out, well, it'll cost you $50 for violating their RULE (not law).

you do as you feel best.

Ok...so maybe I just do not understand. Are you saying that we as CHL holders can legally carry in a post office but if caught, we could be facing a $50 fine via an administrative rule (not law)?

[texasag93]

I know that the Postal Service is not part of the government. If it is not part of the government, does the federal government own the property that the post office is on or does it belong to the Postal Service?

I am sorry to add to this , but that is one thing I have not read.

I try to stay within the bounds of our laws (now that I am older), but I do not like a lawyer (not elected, hired) in a building being guarded by armed guards making security decisions about me a few thousand miles away in a building that he does not own.

texasag

[Photoman]

but IF you do, AND they find out, well, it'll cost you $50 for violating their RULE (not law).

you do as you feel best.

....or 30 days in the can. The Feds can make your life miserable if they so desire.

[srothstein]

Photoman,

I have two problems with the way that final rule is written. First, it still allows for the exception for official purposes. If your license issued by the state is not an official purpose, how is my license issued by the same state (even though a different agency) an official purpose? Your carrying under a CHL is regulated by the state and expressly permitted. I contend that the same lack of clarity would apply.

Second, and truly much more important, is that this rule is invalid on its face. Note that it says "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law". The USC was passed by the Congress and is a law. The rule was passed by a commission and has no authority to abrogate the higher law passed by Congress. Thus, the provisions written in the law by Congress would still override this rule.

I know we are truly debating fine points, and the carrying would result in someone being a test case, which may be a very bad idea, but I think the rule would not hold up. It would cost the money of getting the appeal from the administrative hearing into a federal court, but I don't see the rule standing up once that does happen. And I don't see the Post Office trying to prosecute once your lawyer explains the logic involved, just in case I am write. They would not want the rule thrown out for the people who do not think the way I do and do obey it.

PS, I could be wrong, but I think violation of teh Post Office, or any other agency's rules (CFR) is considered a civil offense and not a crime. They can fine you but not throw you in jail. I am not as up on federal law, so I could very well be very wrong on this part.

[Photoman]

PS, I could be wrong, but I think violation of teh Post Office, or any other agency's rules (CFR) is considered a civil offense and not a crime. They can fine you but not throw you in jail. I am not as up on federal law, so I could very well be very wrong on this part.

(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.

Just like so much of the law (or rules with force of law), it's academic until fully adjudicated. The best we can do is study it, make our decision and live with the consequences. A very sorry state in my opinion, but that's the way it is.

Every person that carries a gun should have a very good legal defense strategy!