TexasCHLforum.com

LOL, I know the issue has been discussed in the past. Basically, had been a gray area, never tested and no one wanted to. HOWEVER, Tom Gresham (Gun Talk) said that it is no longer a gray area, but that there has been a "ruling" on it that you cannot carry, and cannot even have one in the parking lot. I'm not surprised, but does anyone know what "ruling" he has reference to? Also, how can you carry it anywhere else if you cannot even just leave it in your car? I suppose many of us are leaving in the car and being vewwwwy qwiett....

The reason I use a Sub Station all I possibly can. The parking lot deal makes it tough for you guys that are in the city & cant park in the street.
I know concealed is concealed & be veewwwry qwieet. But no one can guarantee that some drunk or just not paying attention person wont back in to you whil you are inside.
Not a good deal.

The case is U.S. v. Dorosan.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The relevant regulation is 39 C.F.R. § 232: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title39/39-1.0.1.4.20.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

(p)(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.

The ruling was in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and several other states.

- Jim

Airports sort of have it right.(in TX)
Public side ok, secure side no.
--Certainly a post office SHOULD BE the same way - Public side OK . --
-----------
? A gun dealer can legally mailguns but how do he get into the post office legally????

? LEO uniform/ plainclothes???? (Off Duty)

? Post office in a national park??? (The new law Feb 22!)

?Drive thru mailboxes out front????




( )

I have to wonder if the court would have ruled the same way if the rule prohibited cell phones or bibles in your own car.

I have an idea, let's force the federal government to give up their monopoly on mail delivery so we aren't forced to use the taxpayer funded waste of money and can do as we please! In fact, why don't we do that with every federally controlled entity that is not able to make enough of a profit to exist without constant price hikes and taxpayer money? Would that be considered a call for doing away with the feds completely because I didn't mean that. Maybe just the parts of the fed that aren't allowed by the constitution would be enough!

seamusTX wrote:The case is U.S. v. Dorosan.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The relevant regulation is 39 C.F.R. § 232: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title39/39-1.0.1.4.20.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

(p)(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.

The ruling was in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and several other states.

- Jim

Any chance of that ruling being appealed to the Supremes?

But the signage in the Post Office states an imprisonment of one year ??

One note I saw in that ruling. It sited his vehicle was in the parking lot portion of the Post Office where they load and unload mail. They sited that specific point in Heller as a controlled area. This area is not open to PUBLIC parking. My wife works at the post office and parks in an exact same parking area. It is not in the public area we all park to mail a letter. Granted, that is not mentioned as being different. But this ruling specifically calls out the regulated area of the lot where the employees can park as well. So it does not mean the outside customer parking area is not also restricted but it does not say it is as well. So while I don't want to be the one to be the test case, remember exclusion does not necessarily mean inclusion here.

OH, and my wife is not payed by federal taxes. You want to have fun, go into a post office sometime and complain to the clerk up front about the price of stamps and how your taxes pay their salary. I would be ready to duck and run..... especially if it is my wife.... grin

Gary

austinrealtor wrote:Any chance of that ruling being appealed to the Supremes?

Any chance? Sure.

But I doubt it.

Appealing to the Supreme Court is expensive. I don't know who paid for the circuit-court appeal. I looked and couldn't find the information. Whoever he or she is may not want to pay out more.

There's also a good chance that the Supreme Court would decline to hear the appeal, thus making the circuit-court decision a precedent for the entire country. (I think that's how these things work.)

The Dorosan decision made it clear that Heller allowed the government to restrict firearms on government property.

- Jim

Mike1951 wrote:But the signage in the Post Office states an imprisonment of one year ??

They may be depending upon 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which prohibits firearms on all federal property. However, the charge against Mr. Dorosan was under 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1).

- Jim

longtooth wrote:The reason I use a Sub Station all I possibly can. The parking lot deal makes it tough for you guys that are in the city & cant park in the street.
I know concealed is concealed & be veewwwry qwieet. But no one can guarantee that some drunk or just not paying attention person wont back in to you whil you are inside.
Not a good deal.

Imagine how ironic it would be if the drunk that backed into you was a CHL who believed it is a good idea to drink while carrying and because he had been drinking, he didn't realize he was in the Post office with his gun.

gwashorn wrote:One note I saw in that ruling. It sited his vehicle was in the parking lot portion of the Post Office where they load and unload mail.... So it does not mean the outside customer parking area is not also restricted but it does not say it is as well. So while I don't want to be the one to be the test case, remember exclusion does not necessarily mean inclusion here.

That remains a gray area, IMHO. The circuit court was speaking to the specific facts of the case.

BTW, the full circuit-court decision with the facts of the case is here: http://volokh.com/files/dorosan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However. ponder this statement from a Post Office spokesperson:

The Court did not indicate whether the Second Amendment would protect gun owners from prosecution if they possess a gun in the public areas of USPS property. Even though USPS parking lots are often indistinguishable from other public parking lots, and are not posted to warn the public of the gun ban, USPS spokesperson Joanne Vito told the Examiner.com that 39 CFR 232.1(l)
“applies to anyone coming into a Post Office or a Postal facility. The regulation prohibiting the possession of firearms or other weapons applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service. . . . Both open and concealed possession are prohibited, so storage of a weapon on a car parked in a lot that is under the charge and control of the Postal Service would be prohibited.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-R ... rking-lots" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The questions remain, who can enforce this regulation, and what constitutes probable cause for a search?

Mr. Dorosan put his foot in it by leaving magazines and ammunition in a mail bag inside the post office. If not for that, we would never have heard of him.

Also, official purposes remains undefined.

Anyone can ship a long gun by U.S. mail. FFL holders can ship handguns. In either case, bringing the unloaded, packaged weapon into the post office is not a problem.

- Jim

Here we go again...

Restricted areas must be closed to public access after hours. One must obey all directives posted in restricted areas.

No anti gun signs = no gun restrictions in public areas open after hours, like parking lots and unattended pickup and drop sectors.

I am not a lawyer, and never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. But I know what goes on in those places...

seamusTX wrote:... allowed the government to restrict firearms on government property.

That phrase makes no sense whatsoever when taken in the context of 2ARKBA and the Heller decision (and Jim, not meanng YOU didn't make any sense - I understood perfectly what you meant - I mean the judicial decision makes no sense).

How can the government, which answers to the people, tell the people they can exercise their God-given right on property owned by the government, thus by default owned by the people.

The twisted logic there baffles me. It really does.