Okay, talk about the issue, not the poster.
Every year I get at least 4 or 5 calls asking about post office carry by a CHL. Here are the undisputed facts:
1. The prohibition on carrying found in 18 U.S.C. 930 applies to "federal facilities" and "federal facilities" is defined to exclude parking lots, grounds, etc.
2. Without a warning sign, 18 U.S. C. 930 does not support arrest, prosecution or conviction;
3. There is no case law interpreting the phrase "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes" found in 18 U.S.C. 930.
4. There is a CFR that states it is unlawful to carry firearms anywhere on Post Office property - not just the buildings;
5. CFR provisions are more detailed than the enabling sections of the U.S. Code that authorizes the creation of those particular CFR provisions;
6. A CFR cannot exceed the authority of its enabling section of the U.S. Code;
7. If a CFR provision is in direct conflict with a provision of the U.S. Code, then the Code controls.
Many people feel the statute is clear and that no one can be prosecuted for carrying on Post Office property if they have a CHL, or if it is otherwise legal to carry a handgun without a CHL. Many people feel exactly the opposite. I've read the write up on thegunzone and he makes a good argument for an appellate brief, but before a brief gets to be filed, someone was arrested, prosecuted and convicted. I can think of a counter argument, but I'm not about to post it here or anywhere else, since I don't want that position to prevail.
When asked for my professional opinion, I am forced to say that 18 U.S.C. 930 appears to make it legal for CHL's to carry in a Post Office even with a warning sign, but that is far from certain. In other words, carry at your own risk and be prepared to be the test case. This is also the opinion of the NRA's Office of General Counsel.
Again, let's keep the discussion on the issue not people.
Chas.