TexasCHLforum.com

Photoman wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Thats a far cry from saying Postmasters can "grant authority" to local LEOs to enforce postal laws., isn't it Photoman?

It is clear they can.

You can call it whatever you want, but the end result is...you end up on the wrong side of Johnny Law.



USPS does NOT want YOUR gun on THEIR property. They are actively adjusting their regulations to eliminate any perceived loopholes.

It may be clear to you but it is NOT clear to me.

When I was going through training w/IRS, one of the new agents was from FL and he audited a Cuban immigant Dr. Another agent asked if he had checked to see if the Dr had a FL license. I asked why? Our job was to see if he paid his taxes. I pointed out if we audited a mafia hitman, our job would be to see if he reported all of his contract killings.

Our instructor said we'd probably charge the hitman with dealing drugs, then the killings would come out in open court. (I think he was kidding.)

I want to encourage everyone to read Title 39 Part 232 before carrying your concealed handgun onto United States Postal Service property, which does include parking lots. Make sure you read the current, amended version.

The USPS does not want your concealed handgun on their property. They are amending their regulations to close any perceived loopholes regarding this subject. Local law enforcement CAN enforce this regulation if your local Postmaster agrees.

Finally, I would like to apologize to Charles and the readers for the inappropriate language I used in previous posts. I really appreciate the information available on this forum and enjoy participating, for the most part, in the various subjects posted regarding the legal concealed carry of firearms in Texas and would truly regret losing the privilege of posting here.

Photoman, this is an important part of what you and TXInvestigator have been discussing. I think the part that you've been overlooking is the last clause of 40USC1315(d)(3), which I have highlighted...

TITLE 40 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 13 > § 1315

§ 1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
d) Details.—
(1) Requests of agencies.
(2) Applicability of regulations.
(3) Facilities and services of other agencies.— When the Secretary determines it to be economical and in the public interest, the Secretary may utilize the facilities and services of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, with the consent of the agencies.

If the local agency doesn't have an agreement in place, the consent of the local agency doesn't exist...

Local law enforcement can enforce Title 39 Part 232 when both parties (local Postmaster and local PD) agree. Better?

No matter how much we drugstore lawyers micro-analyze this, the bottom line is:

If you are caught with a gun on USPS property, you can be arrested.

How would we know whether or not, the Post Office entered into an agreement with a local law enforcement agency. Is it going to be public?

If not public, then it would be safer to assume such an agreement than to assume there is no agreement.

stroo wrote:If not public, then it would be safer to assume such an agreement than to assume there is no agreement.

It's a definite possibility and probably a lot more likely in this post-9/11 world than some would think. We know that the USPS is concerned about this issue due to the recent amendments to the code. If they haven't already, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they are in the process of making sure that such agreements are standard procedure.

If my name was Bubba and I lived in nowhere Texas and went fishing with the Postmaster every Saturday, I wouldn't worry about it. But I live in the big city where politics and lilly-livered, gun-phobic city slickers rule the roost. I don't think my Postmaster, who put up with 20 years of gov'ment headache to get the job, is going to do anything to keep me from going to the pokey when it's found out that good ol' Photoman has a .45 under his shirt.

Then again, maybe I'm just wearing a tin-foil hat.

Here's something to think about: While the Internet is not a perfect source of news, it does disseminate a lot of information. If a CHL holder or someone carrying a weapon legally in another state were arrested in a post office, wouldn't we have heard about it? It's the kind of thing that the GOA and SAF get excited about.

- Jim

Good point, but I don't know that I would rely on the lack of any reports of arrests. That certainly won't be a defence if you are arrested.

stroo wrote:Good point, but I don't know that I would rely on the lack of any reports of arrests. That certainly won't be a defence if you are arrested.

Of course not. But it suggest one of three possiblities:

• No one has been caught.
• No one carries in the post office.
• The post office is not interested in enforcing this regulation at the local level.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:But it suggest one of three possiblities:

• No one has been caught.
• No one carries in the post office.
• The post office is not interested in enforcing this regulation at the local level.

- Jim

Point one: I've never heard of anyone being arrested for CC'ing on USPS property.

Point two: Who knows?

Point three: Questionable. If they were not interested in enforcing this regulation, one has to wonder why they bothered amending the regulation earlier this year with the specific intent of preventing legal CC. Maybe the local Postmasters don't really care to enforce the regulation?

Photoman wrote:Point three: Questionable. If they were not interested in enforcing this regulation, one has to wonder why they bothered amending the regulation earlier this year with the specific intent of preventing legal CC. Maybe the local Postmasters don't really care to enforce the regulation?

That's what I'm suggesting. Local people being at odds with Washington is an old story.

- Jim

TxFire wrote:Can a local LEO enforce this Federal Law? If so, are they likely to?

Shortly after our CHL law went into effect, San Antonio police were watching in P.O. parking lots. When they saw someone pull in, park, shift body to reach something on their side/hip and then bend over to obviously hide it under the seat (or open glove box or console) they would approach and ask for ID.

The handgun got confiscated on the spot.

I read a lot of complaints in that vein.

San Antonio city is notoriously anti CHL.

Bif wrote:

TxFire wrote:Can a local LEO enforce this Federal Law? If so, are they likely to?

Shortly after our CHL law went into effect, San Antonio police were watching in P.O. parking lots. When they saw someone pull in, park, shift body to reach something on their side/hip and then bend over to obviously hide it under the seat (or open glove box or console) they would approach and ask for ID.

The handgun got confiscated on the spot.

I read a lot of complaints in that vein.

San Antonio city is notoriously anti CHL.

Whoa, that definitely bites!

badkarma56 wrote:

Bif wrote:

TxFire wrote:Can a local LEO enforce this Federal Law? If so, are they likely to?

Shortly after our CHL law went into effect, San Antonio police were watching in P.O. parking lots. When they saw someone pull in, park, shift body to reach something on their side/hip and then bend over to obviously hide it under the seat (or open glove box or console) they would approach and ask for ID.

The handgun got confiscated on the spot.

I read a lot of complaints in that vein.

San Antonio city is notoriously anti CHL.

Whoa, that definitely bites!

Easier than confronting MS-13 bangers for carrying lock blade knives.

Anygun