Post office carry

[HankB]

Doesn't a CHL fall under "other Lawful Purpose"?

To many of us, yes! That is why there will always be disagreement on this issue until it is addressed by the legislatures.

IMHO, licensed concealed carry DOES fall under the "other lawful purpose" exemption.

But . . . unfortunately, I am not a Federal judge who can issue a ruling on this. And I'm not going to volunteer to be the test case that establishes case law. So right now, my non-lawyer's advice is don't get caught carrying in a post office.

[Oldgringo]

Isn't TVA a similar non-federal federal outfit as the USPO?

How many other non-federal federal organizations/offices are out there where CC could get you thrown in the hoosegow? Speaking of which, can I CC in an ACORN office?

When in danger or doubt, run in circles and scream and shout - but don't CC.

[casingpoint]

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
39 CFR 232.1 Conduct on postal property, (b) Inspection, recording presence.

(3) Except as otherwise ordered, properties must be closed to the
public after normal business hours.

And if a property is left open after hours one could carry there?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Post office carry comes up periodically and there are long-running threads on this issue so I won't give the long-winded version again. Here is the short version.

• 1. Texas law does not prohibit concealed-carry in a Post Office, but federal law does;
  
  2. As already noted in this thread, a CFR covering Post Office property removes it from any protection that might have been available to a CHL by way of the "other lawful activity" clause in 18 U.S.C. 930.
  
  3. 18 U.S.C. 930 would not protect a CHL, even if the above-referenced CFR were not in place.

Even if there was no CFR prohibiting the carrying of firearms on Post Office property, the "other lawful activity" argument fails to appreciate the importance of the phrase "incident to . . ." This provision reads in pertinent part as follows:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
. . .
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

A firearm is "incident to" hunting since it is a necessary element in that activity. Without the firearm, the person would not be able to hunt. (Yes, I know you could use a bow, but those are also prohibited.) The self-defense handgun on your side is not "incident to" anything you are going to do in a Post Office. It isn't an integral part of buying stamps, mailing a package, or checking a post office box. Some argue that it is "incident to lawful self-defense," but that argument fails. You are carrying a gun to be capable of defending yourself should the need arise; you are not engaging in "lawful self-defense" when you are buying stamps, etc.

Some argue that the "other lawful activity" is simply the act of carrying of a handgun, but that circular reasoning also fails. The possession of a firearm or other weapon on federal property must be "incident to" another lawful activity. No activity can be "incident to" itself. Look at it as a two question inquiry: 1) are you carrying a gun; and 2) is that gun necessary or integral to conducting another lawful activity in the federal facility? If you cannot answer "yes" to both questions, then 18 U.S.C. 930 does not offer any protection to a person carrying a firearm in a federal facility.

The bottom line is this: it is illegral to possess a firearm on Post Office property and this includes the entire real estate, not just the building; well-intended, well-motivated arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

Chas.

[Beiruty]

Chas,

Some post offices are in a strip mall. The parking is shared among many retail stores. If I parked my car, disarmed, left my pistol in my car, and went into the PO. Am I still breaching the law?

[Mike1951]

Not to argue with the Boss, but:

I guess I misunderstood in that I thought anything in the Code of Federal Regulations had to have a corresponding entry in the U.S. Code for it to be enforceable. If that were correct, the CFR would not override the USC.

Also, with respect to "incident to". When was hunting ever allowed in the Post Office? The intent had to have been to protect someone who had been or was going hunting and happened to stop at the post office. So their shotgun was also not incident to buying stamps, yet they were exempt.

[Keith B]

Chas,

Some post offices are in a strip mall. The parking is shared among many retail stores. If I parked my car, disarmed, left my pistol in my car, and went into the PO. Am I still breaching the law?

I am not Charles, and IANAL, but I am 99.9% sure this is the way it wold work:

If it is a 'stand alone' post office, i.e. only the Post Office/USPS occupies that rented space in the mall, and is ran like a regular post office, then the rented space would be the only off-limits area and it would not extend to a joint-use parking lot.

However, if the post office is just a satellite for the USPS in a commercial shipping business, like Mailboxes, Etc or a UPS store, then the location does not become an off-limits area as they are a private entity contracted to provide the service and not a federal location with federal employees.


However, I could be wrong due to the 0.1% I left out above.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Chas,

Some post offices are in a strip mall. The parking is shared among many retail stores. If I parked my car, disarmed, left my pistol in my car, and went into the PO. Am I still breaching the law?

In my opinion you are not violating the law under these facts. If a Post Office chooses to lease space in a privately owned strip center, then it doesn't control the entire property, including but not limited to the parking lot. As with any tenant, it would control only it's leasehold area.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I guess I misunderstood in that I thought anything in the Code of Federal Regulations had to have a corresponding entry in the U.S. Code for it to be enforceable. If that were correct, the CFR would not override the USC.

The purpose of allowing federal agencies to make rules and post them in the CFR's is to reduce the workload on Congress. Without the CFR's, Congress would have to pass a bill for every federal rule in existence. However, Congress didn't want to give federal agencies the authority to make any and every rule they pleased, nor would the Constitution allow it. Therefore, so-called "enabling statutes" are passed by Congress authorizing specific federal agencies to make rules and publish them in the CFR's. These enabling statutes specify the scope of an agency's authority to publish rules by setting out the subject matter an agency can address and any applicable limits. So if a proposed rule exceeds an agency's scope of authority, it can be challenged in court. However, when a rule is published, it is not necessary to pass a federal law that mirrors the rule.

Here is an example. Let's say the enabling statute granted the Post Office authority to issue rules/regulations concerning security on Post Office property. If the PO issued a rule that only clear see-through back backs would allowed, the rule would probably be within the scope of the PO's authority under the enabling statute. However, if the PO issued a rule prohibiting the wearing of white shoes, then it would exceed the authority of the enabling statute.

Also, with respect to "incident to". When was hunting ever allowed in the Post Office? The intent had to have been to protect someone who had been or was going hunting and happened to stop at the post office. So their shotgun was also not incident to buying stamps, yet they were exempt.

You're right, hunting has never been legal in a Post Office. However, 18 U.S.C. 930's "incident to hunting and other lawful activity" exception broadly applies to any and all federal facilities, not specifically to Post Offices. By necessity, it applies only to federal facilities on which hunting is even possible. Therefore, since it was no designed to apply only to Post Offices, there was not intent to protect returning hunters who stop at a Post Office on the way home. The intent of this provision was to allow hunting, competitive shooting, informal shooting, and training on certain federal property.

Chas.

[joe817]

You're right, hunting has never been legal in a Post Office.

A vision of Elmer Fudd hunting a flying Duck's Unlimited postage stamp in the post office immediately popped up in my mind.

Charles, many thanks for the clarifications regarding questions posed by this thread.

[chabouk]

You're right, hunting has never been legal in a Post Office. However, 18 U.S.C. 930's "incident to hunting and other lawful activity" exception broadly applies to any and all federal facilities, not specifically to Post Offices. By necessity, it applies only to federal facilities on which hunting is even possible.

"In which", not "on".

18 USC 930 defines a "federal facility" as a "building or portion of a building" where federal employees work. By the same reasoning that "incident to" precludes buying stamps while armed, it's impossible for hunting to be "incident to" being armed in a "federal facility". Or, perhaps "incident to" has a broader definition when it comes to "lawful purposes".

I really shouldn't have gotten into that, because none of it applies to post offices. Someone earlier posted a link to the buckeyefirearms page where a lawyer convincingly demonstrates that USPS is exempt from 18 USC 930. Citing that code while discussing the post office is irrelevant, because 18 USC 930 does not apply in post offices. They have their own, separate CFR that covers parking lots and all property, not just buildings.

To correct a common misconception, guns are not automatically banned from all "federal property", and certainly don't trigger a 5 year felony (as is often claimed). Different agencies might have their own CFRs that ban guns (like the National Park Service, until Congress fixed that problem, or the Corps of Engineers). Others don't, like the U.S. Forest Service, which goes by state law.

[Charles L. Cotton]

18 USC 930 defines a "federal facility" as a "building or portion of a building" where federal employees work. By the same reasoning that "incident to" precludes buying stamps while armed, it's impossible for hunting to be "incident to" being armed in a "federal facility". Or, perhaps "incident to" has a broader definition when it comes to "lawful purposes".

It does not have a broader meaning in the context of "lawful purposes." I too noted the problem with using the narrowly defined term "facility," but the effect doesn't broaden the scope of the phrase "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." Rather it probably renders the exception meaningless in terms of hunting, but not in terms of "other lawful purposes." For example, it could well be lawful to engage in target shooting in a "federal facility," or it could be lawful to teach a firearms course in a "federal facility" using firearms.

I really shouldn't have gotten into that, because none of it applies to post offices. Someone earlier posted a link to the buckeyefirearms page where a lawyer convincingly demonstrates that USPS is exempt from 18 USC 930. Citing that code while discussing the post office is irrelevant, because 18 USC 930 does not apply in post offices. They have their own, separate CFR that covers parking lots and all property, not just buildings.

Yes, I said this in an earlier post in this thread and I've been teaching this for years. However, many folks who accept the "other lawful activities" exception nevertheless still believe Post Office carry is legal. Plus, the 18 U.S.C. 930 "exception" applies to any federal facility, so the impact of the phrase "incident to" is still important.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

18 USC 930 defines a "federal facility" as a "building or portion of a building" where federal employees work. By the same reasoning that "incident to" precludes buying stamps while armed, it's impossible for hunting to be "incident to" being armed in a "federal facility". Or, perhaps "incident to" has a broader definition when it comes to "lawful purposes".

It does not have a broader meaning in the context of "lawful purposes." I too noted the problem with using the narrowly defined term "facility," but the effect doesn't broaden the scope of the phrase "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." Rather it probably renders the exception meaningless in terms of hunting, but not in terms of "other lawful purposes." For example, it could well be lawful to engage in target shooting in a "federal facility," or it could be lawful to teach a firearms course in a "federal facility" using firearms.

I really shouldn't have gotten into that, because none of it applies to post offices. Someone earlier posted a link to the buckeyefirearms page where a lawyer convincingly demonstrates that USPS is exempt from 18 USC 930. Citing that code while discussing the post office is irrelevant, because 18 USC 930 does not apply in post offices. They have their own, separate CFR that covers parking lots and all property, not just buildings.

Yes, I said this in an earlier post in this thread and I've been teaching this for years. However, many folks who accept the "other lawful activities" exception nevertheless still believe Post Office carry is legal. Plus, the 18 U.S.C. 930 "exception" applies to any federal facility, so the impact of the phrase "incident to" is still important.

Chas.

A few things that come to mind in this discussion...

What is the implementing legislation for the CFR prohibiting firearms on Post Office property? If it is 18 USC 930, then I agree you could not carry in a Post Office facility, but you'd seem to be OK in the parking lot and on the property based on the definition of facility and the requirements for posting notice in the law.

If it's 39 USC 410 as the Buckeye Firearms attorney suggests in his web page analysis, then I don't find the elements of the crime nor a definition of the punishment for violating the regulation, at least not in the law (39 USC 410). In fact, if 18 USC 930 is not applicable, the penalty described in the CFR (not the law) is a $50 fine and up to 30 days in jail that could be imposed by a federal magistrate. Same as you could get for smoking, posting handbills, or other conduct prohibited by the Postal CFR. That's kind of the federal equivalent of a Texas Class C misdemeanor, not that I'd advocate breaking the law.

The Buckeye firearms attorney goes on to describe an Ohio law that makes it an Ohio felony to carry where prohibited/posted. So what I see here in Texas... Either you can carry on postal property, but not in a facility, based on 18 USC 930. Or you can't carry on either, based on 39 CFR 232.1, but the maximum penalty is $50 fine and 30 days in jail, and that's IF the CFR can act to create a crime that is not set out in an enabling statute or elsewhere in federal criminal law.

[casingpoint]

So this doesn't go to what is regulated versus unregulated postal property?

39 CFR.1 (b)(3) Except as otherwise ordered, properties must be closed to the
public after normal business hours.

[jordanusmc]

Ok well on the same lines of a post office being in a shopping center what about a police substation being in a mall or shoping center? I obviously understand that you can not carry in to a police station. However can you carry in a mall with a substation or even in to the actuall substation at the mall?