TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

This is the point WildBill. Even if we don't like a law and feel it is invalid in itself, IMO it is still the law, and you should do everything you can to abide by that law. Now, I am not saying roll over and play dead when it comes to trying to get it changed. The proper way to get statutes and legislation changed it to fight it through the system that is established. Is it sometime a long or almost impossible road? Yes, but many times one voice speaking up can make a difference. And if that voice can reach enough folks and garner their support, it is kinda like the old ladies hair color commercial from the 60's; 'And they tell two of their friends, and then those two tell two of THEIR friends...' and soon you have one large voice to fight with.

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.

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.

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.

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;

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.

wcalvert wrote:My CHL instructor spent quite a bit of time on post offices and carrying this last weekend. he is currently an LEO for Harris County Sheriff's office and has been an LEO in Houston for 36 years. He said that there is almost always a set of double doors to access federal employees and you could safely carry outside those double doors. New post offices don't have the double doors, but are open and have detectors. you of course are not allowed to pass the detectors. he said before you carry at any post office you should ask someone at that location.

This seems to be somewhat contradicting to what y'all are saying...

Unfortunately there is not really any case law, where an individual with a CHL has been arrested for going into or onto post office property, to more clearly define the boundaries. I think what your CHL instructor did is what many of them and us do, and that is try to set a reasonable 'line in the sand' that works to allow you to have your gun close and will 99.9% keep you out of trouble. Bottom line, there are no hard facts or guidance other than what the federal code states and everyone's lay interpretation of that statute.

ELB wrote:'tis done. FAQ-man is at peace again.

FAQ: Carrying at the US Post Office

Do you have a cape and tights for that job FAQ-man?