TexasCHLforum.com

I am not saying that people should not be as prepared as they can be for anything that can go wrong anywhere, any time. Of course we should.

What I am trying to say is that for someone who thinks it is illegal to carry in a post office (which is not at all clear), going into one disarmed to mail a letter is a lot different from working in one.

The people who work in a store are far more likely to be targets than customers. Some robbers will wait until there are no customers, then commit their crime.

Of course robbers sometimes go after customers, but that is not common.

- Jim

The risk is proportional to the amount of time that you spend in a place.

What I understood the OP to be talking about was a retail establishment that also had post office boxes and maybe sold stamps and some similar functions. These places are private businesses.

Retail establishments are the most likely places to be robbed, especially those that are open early and late, have little traffic, and are quick-in-quick-out.

If you go in for one minute, you have much less risk than someone who works there all day.

- Jim

More specifically, until a CHL holder has to shoot in self-defense.

Part of the reason why I say this law is unlikely to be tested is that CHL holders tend to avoid being the target of crimes in the first place, through situational awareness and conducting themselves in ways that make criminals look for softer targets.

In the case of a self-defense shooting, I would expect the feds to let local authorities sort out the issue. Then the defender will either be found justified or charged with a state crime.

It would be rather picayune of the feds to then charge the defender with the moral equivalent of a speeding ticket.

Prosecuting someone under an untested law opens the possibility of the law being declared invalid or unconstitutional. That is what happened to the earlier federal "gun-free school zone" law.

- Jim

We could discuss this issue forever.

No one really knows the meaning of a law until it is prosecuted and appealed. I doubt anyone is ever going to be prosecuted under this law or regulation, because no one who has the authority to prosecute violations of post-office regulations is going to be looking for licensed concealed-carry holders in post offices.

- Jim

Oldgringo wrote: I don't understand the issue. If there is any question, why not just put the gun under the seat and go in do your business and then go on your way.

These unattended post office satellites are a likely location for robbery or more nefarious forms of assault, especially for women.

What people seem to forget is that the federal offense of carrying on post office property is a minor misdemeanor. And, for all that is discussed, no one can point to a case of it being prosecuted.

- Jim

The key is premises owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees work regularly.

In the gray areas, it all comes down to how lucky you feel. Is the Postal Police or FBI going to pounce on you with a warrant when you're mailing a letter?

- Jim