TexasCHLforum.com

csmintx wrote:I guess my question would be, just how would anyone know there was a weapon in your vehicle if it is concealed? There must be probable cause for any search.

It is not whether you will get found out and caught, it is whether it is legal in the first place. I think this gets lost with a lot of folks today that it is more of what can I get away with vs. is it the right thing to do.

I do not disagree Keith, but there comes a point where the what if's cloud the issue. I have never seen a post office parking lot which was gated, therefore it is public access. Would a vehicle turning around in the post office parking lot be subject to the Federal statutes? We can "what if" it to death, but it seems to me that practical application of the spirit of the law is more useful than blind adherance to the letter.

csmintx wrote:I do not disagree Keith, but there comes a point where the what if's cloud the issue. I have never seen a post office parking lot which was gated, therefore it is public access. Would a vehicle turning around in the post office parking lot be subject to the Federal statutes? We can "what if" it to death, but it seems to me that practical application of the spirit of the law is more useful than blind adherance to the letter.

Oh, no disagreement that there is a lot of gray area in laws. And this is the case for the post office laws. United States Code: Title 18 § 930 governs carrying of firearms in federal facilities, and states that facility is the building. HOWEVER, 39 § 232 exempts the Postal Service from federal code and sets the precedence on their rules for no firearms on postal service property.

Here is an opinion of one lawyer on this matter http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conceale ... -awakening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly my point Keith. So if you pull into the post office after work; leave your firearm in the vehicle; do your postal business; and leave, in my mind you are well within the spirit of the law, and probably the letter as well. Under that scenario there is no possible way that your vehicle could be searched. It is just practical application, not willful violation of the law.

I put my pocket gun in my pocket the other day, for a quick trip to the market and a couple of other errands, figured I would be gone maybe a half hour or so (I do mean quick) and as I started out the door I noticed the little package that my wife had asked me to mail, and immediately put my stupid on and picked the package up to do on the way, as I headed for the car.

We have one of those "off site" post offices just a few minutes from my house, and on the way to the other errands, but the regular post office is also on the way, so I drove by to see how crowded it was. There were three whole cars in the lot, so I swung in and parked, grabbed the package, went inside, filled out the label at the counter without holding anyone up, nobody else there, paid, and left, before I realized I still had my pocket gun in my pocket.

I am not one to worry about things much in retrospect, but this thread did give me pause to wonder if I had placed myself in candidacy to be a test case.

In the past I have discussed this with a couple of PO employees and I think the chance of getting prosecuted would be proportional to the person doing the discovering's understanding of the law and personal anti-gun-nut attitude or lack of same.

Keith B wrote:

csmintx wrote:I do not disagree Keith, but there comes a point where the what if's cloud the issue. I have never seen a post office parking lot which was gated, therefore it is public access. Would a vehicle turning around in the post office parking lot be subject to the Federal statutes? We can "what if" it to death, but it seems to me that practical application of the spirit of the law is more useful than blind adherance to the letter.

Oh, no disagreement that there is a lot of gray area in laws. And this is the case for the post office laws. United States Code: Title 18 § 930 governs carrying of firearms in federal facilities, and states that facility is the building. HOWEVER, 39 § 232 exempts the Postal Service from federal code and sets the precedence on their rules for no firearms on postal service property.

Here is an opinion of one lawyer on this matter http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conceale ... -awakening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is fairly apparent that I am not a lawyer. I read the opinion by the Ohio lawyer and I did get lost with some of his reasoning and jargon. That being said, I'm not sure it addresses the question here. The question here has to do with the parking lot of a post office. I got the feeling that the lawyer was speaking in general and did not make a determination (if any) between facilities vs. property.

When I read 39 USC 410 section (a) , I read it as saying that no federal law shall apply to post offices with the exception of the laws enumerated in section (b).
In other words...section (b) is applied to Post Offices.

(a) [b]Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section[/b], 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.

Yes it says that no federal shall apply to the post office in terms of the "property" ...but again...the exception is section (b).

Section (b) says:

(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:
(1) blah blah blah...
(2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;

Furthermore, this is evidenced by the fact that the Post Office post signs at the entrance in accordance with Title 18 which reference Title 18.

When I read Title 18, it specifically states that weapons are prohibited in the "Facility." Title 18 further defines "Facility" to mean the "building" itself, NOT the parking lots or property.

(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part
thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal
employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing
their official duties.

I just returned from the Gatesville Post Office. Here is the sign they had posted (below). It took two pictures to capture it. I apologize in advance for the poor quality. Please note that it states, "..or in your vehicle.."

hmmm....cant find 19 USC 930!!!!!!

pt145ss wrote:hmmm....cant find 19 USC 930!!!!!!

Yes, I know. I am sure they intended to quote 18 UCS--it is the Post Office what do you expect?

However, 39 CFR 232-1(I) is correct. http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/232-1-conduct-p ... y-19777182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

csmintx wrote:Exactly my point Keith. So if you pull into the post office after work; leave your firearm in the vehicle; do your postal business; and leave, in my mind you are well within the spirit of the law, and probably the letter as well. Under that scenario there is no possible way that your vehicle could be searched. It is just practical application, not willful violation of the law.

Actually, you ARE in violation. 39 § 232 is what governs the Postal Service, and it overrides all other laws per the code. And 39 § 232 states no firearms on government property, period. Pretty black and white as far as I can tell.

If those signs are correct, and the USPS is exempt from federal code, how does an individual ship a rifle or a FFL ship a pistol via US mail? After all, in a box and carried in can easily be considered "concealed on your person" IMHO.

Keith B wrote:

csmintx wrote:Exactly my point Keith. So if you pull into the post office after work; leave your firearm in the vehicle; do your postal business; and leave, in my mind you are well within the spirit of the law, and probably the letter as well. Under that scenario there is no possible way that your vehicle could be searched. It is just practical application, not willful violation of the law.

Actually, you ARE in violation. 39 § 232 is what governs the Postal Service, and it overrides all other laws per the code. And 39 § 232 states no firearms on government property, period. Pretty black and white as far as I can tell.

I read that in the other post....but when I read 39 USC 232 i do not see where it says anything about superceding federal law. I read each title and section where it says it gets its authority...and none of them say that these rules supercede federal law.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 13, 3061; 21 U.S.C. 802, 844; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403(b)(3), 404(a)(7); 40 U.S.C. 1315; Sec. 811, Pub. L. 109–115, 119 Stat. 2396.
§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

pt145ss wrote:

Keith B wrote:

csmintx wrote:Exactly my point Keith. So if you pull into the post office after work; leave your firearm in the vehicle; do your postal business; and leave, in my mind you are well within the spirit of the law, and probably the letter as well. Under that scenario there is no possible way that your vehicle could be searched. It is just practical application, not willful violation of the law.

Actually, you ARE in violation. 39 § 232 is what governs the Postal Service, and it overrides all other laws per the code. And 39 § 232 states no firearms on government property, period. Pretty black and white as far as I can tell.

I read that in the other post....but when I read 39 USC 232 i do not see where it says anything about superceding federal law. I read each title and section where it says it gets its authority...and none of them say that these rules supercede federal law.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 13, 3061; 21 U.S.C. 802, 844; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403(b)(3), 404(a)(7); 40 U.S.C. 1315; Sec. 811, Pub. L. 109–115, 119 Stat. 2396.
§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

I think the fact that 39 § 232 specifically addresses the postal service property is what would supercede the individual pieces of the overall code.

Keith B wrote: I think the fact that 39 § 232 specifically addresses the postal service property is what would supercede the individual pieces of the overall code.

Ok...Because 18 USC 930 does not specifically say "Post Office" and only referes to "Federal Facility" and Because 39 USC 410 say "
all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service"...the post office can write their own code in regards to weapons on the property...correct? That almost makes sense and I can almost follow that. However, what gets me, is that evertime i see a sign in a post office, it referes to 18 USC 930...but that does not apply to the post office given the logic above. One would think they would reference their Code of Federal Regulations in the case 39 CFR 232 instead of 18 USC 930 which has nothing to do with them.

pt145ss wrote:

Keith B wrote: I think the fact that 39 § 232 specifically addresses the postal service property is what would supercede the individual pieces of the overall code.

Ok...Because 18 USC 930 does not specifically say "Post Office" and only referes to "Federal Facility" and Because 39 USC 410 say "
all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service"...the post office can write their own code in regards to weapons on the property...correct? That almost makes sense and I can almost follow that. However, what gets me, is that evertime i see a sign in a post office, it referes to 18 USC 930...but that does not apply to the post office given the logic above. One would think they would reference their Code of Federal Regulations in the case 39 CFR 232 instead of 18 USC 930 which has nothing to do with them.

Confusing ain't it!! LOL That is the problem with overlapping and ambiguous codes, statues and laws with no case law to set precedence or an AG opinion to define clarify the intent and provide guidance. That is what keeps the lawyers in bidness.