TexasCHLforum.com

I rarely go to the PO. Once or twice a year to mail stuff to my in-laws in the Phillipines.

ScottDLS wrote:I don't read it exactly that way. I don't think that the CFR can overrride the elements of the crime defined in the statute (18 USC 930), which defines "facility" as a building and not the property. So I don't think you could be convicted under 18 USC 930 for having a gun in the parking lot.

There is a penalty defined in the CFR for violating postal regulations... and it is $50 fine/up to 30 days in jail that can be imposed by a federal magistrate.

Ok...so if they do not covict you under 18 USC 930, then they will convict under 39 CFR 232. Is that a misdemeanor? How will that effect your CHL?

I was fairly convinced at first that there was no way they could prevent carry in a parking lot given they are a "Federal Facility" especially given how they reference 18 USC 930. I'm glad you guys challenged me to research the codes for myself (the Ohio lawyer thing lost me a bit). After looking it all over, I'm fairly conviced that the postal property in its entirety is off limits. That is until there is some case law that challenges that.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

Keith B wrote:

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.

Some of those CFRs for the post office are darn near unconsitutional with all the implied consent to search and barely a word about probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

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.

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.

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

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.

Abraham wrote:Post Offices have detectors?

I'm not disputing it, but when and where and why?

ours does, but i do not think they are metal detectors. I think they are the standard merchandise detection stuff as they have merchandise laying around.

MoJo wrote:

Keith B wrote:

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.

Any volunteers to be a test case? - - - Hello? - - - Hello? - - - I didn't think so.

i do not think anyone wants to be a test case, however, given the inforation, i would not be overly concerned about leaving it in the car in the parking lot.

The post office near us is split into two clearly defined areas. One area is the post office boxes and the self help machines. There are no detectors as you go into this area and no signs. The second area is the customer service area. As you walk through this area you must pass though the detectors and on the wall as you enter that area is a sign the makes reference to 18 USC 930 (IIRC). I do not know what all is involved in the arguments here, but I did read 18 USC 930 which does prohibit firearms inside a federal facility. It also clearly defines a federal facility to be to building owned or leased by the FED. I did not see any where in the code that talked about “property”…just facility. The last section of the code talked about sign posting requirements. And it seems that this particular post office is in compliance by posting at the entrance of the customer service area.

(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.