Post Office carry...different, I promise!

[waffenmacht]

The problem is, as I have pointed out many times, that firearms are NOT prohibited on USPS property. The USPS actially has written instructions as to how a firearm can be shipped. Many routinely carry concealed firearms into the post office, declare that they have them, and ship them through the system.

So to say that firearms are prohibited on federal property, specifically USPS property is simply untrue.

Now I do understand that the USPS doesn't ship handguns. But to lump all firearms together doesnt cut it.

[Mike1951]

Now I do understand that the USPS doesn't ship handguns. But to lump all firearms together doesnt cut it.

Actually, they do. One FFL can mail handguns to another FFL.

[seamusTX]

How can the government, which answers to the people, tell the people they can exercise their God-given right on property owned by the government, thus by default owned by the people[?]

I'll try to explain it. Please keep in mind that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. My personal opinion is different.

I think everyone will agree on two principles:

• Property owned by the government, and thus by the people, should be accessible to the people to the greatest extent possible.
  
  This property includes national parks, forests, monuments, waterways, the galleries of the houses of Congress, etc.
• The government has a legitimate interest in maintaining security at certain facilities.
  
  Examples would be the Oval Office and living quarters of the President and his family, portions of facilities such as Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers, Los Alamos National Laboratories, and Cheyenne Mountain and other military bases.

Over the years (at least from WW II through the years after 9/11/2001), this government privilege of maintaining security has ratcheted down so that nearly everyone except law enforcement personnel and guards were prohibited from having weapons on almost all federal property (national forests being the only significant exception).

AFAIK, no court of record has ruled that such regulations are a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Note that other rights have been restricted on similar terms. You cannot exercise your freedom of speech or petition government for redress of grievances in the galleries of Congress. If you try, you will be escorted out; and if you resist, you will be arrested.

The bottom line is that when Congress passes a law, or a federal agency makes a rule pursuant to a law, and the Supreme Court upholds it, it is the law of the land. If the people do not express their dissatisfaction by protest and voting the bums out, the situation will be unchanged.

Social attitudes changed from the early years of this country's history to the 1960s. By that time, the majority of citizens no longer saw the need to bear arms routinely, and they allowed these "reasonable restrictions" to be put into place.

Now we are down to a rather small fraction of the population that does not form a voting bloc and that is not united on long-term goals or strategy. The NRA has fewer than 5 million members, or about 3% of the adult population. What does that say?

I'm switching to decaf now.

- Jim

[gigag04]

I carry as an off duty LEO when I go check my mail.

As far as the getting backed into - most LE agencies don't investigate accidents in parking lots (which are private property). They will issue blue forms. Even if something did go hinky and a Texas Peace Officer were to find a firearm in your vehicle in the parking lot, he couldn't file any charges....since it is supposedly against federal law. We can only charge people with things in the State and Municipal codes.

I won't say if I when I was just under a CHL only if I carried into a post office....because it wasn't concealed and it didn't matter. Not that I recommend carrying into a post office....

IMO leaving it in the car is a non-issue, even at the Post Office. You should be fine.

[srothstein]

i think there is an important factor in this case that makes it different than almost any other case. It also proves the old saying that bad facts make for bad case law.

The defendant was a postal employee at work. The court specifically took note of this fact when it looked at where he parked and what was available. The did rule on the basis of a property owner having rights, but I read this case as more of an employer having rights. We would not want this case going to the SCOTUS as we would probably lose.

And I also think we need to look at this case from another point of view. Consider what will happen in the 5th Circuit now when we do pass a parking lot bill. Would the Fifth Circuit uphold it as Constitutional or think the property owner has the right to ban? RIGHT TO BAN is the key phrase in that sentence and in the ruling, at least to me. We need to take this into account as we prepare for the next legislative session and let it die out before some opponents take not eof the wording in the decision.

[seamusTX]

Regarding any future Texas parking lot bill:

This case (Dorosan) was in federal court to begin with because it concerned a violation of federal regulations on federal property.

The United States is a sovereign entity. The State of Texas (while also a sovereign entity) cannot make laws that apply to the property of the United States.

Whether the State of Texas can legislate the relationships of private (i.e., non-governmental) employers and employees within the state is a different matter.

- Jim

[ELB]

... Not that I recommend carrying into a post office....

IMO leaving it in the car is a non-issue, even at the Post Office. You should be fine.

Just an observation. For non-LEOs, it is pretty clear that the USPS thinks a gun in your car in the parking lot is just as illegal as one under your shirt in the PO building, and presumably would prosecute you if they could find a federal officer to arrest you and a federal DA to prosecute it. So legally speaking, you aren't any better off hiding it in the car than you are just leaving it under your shirt (or strapped to your ankle, or whatnot). Plus you have the added hassle of messing with the gun in the parking lot -- twice -- with the risk of being seen or God forbid inadvertently launching a projectile, which I am sure would get the attention of the PO management as well as the local and maybe federal constabulary.

Not that I would advocate breaking the law. Just an observation. If you are going to the break the rules, tho, you might as well get the benefit of doing so. Leaving it in the car just means you are unarmed AND illegal.

[GhostTX]

I send my wife to go to the post office...

[gwashorn]

Well, my wife works at the post office so I don't go to mail anything. HOWEVER, I do sometimes pick her up for lunch. Hhhhmmmm...
Gary

[Kinetic]

The case is U.S. v. Dorosan.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The relevant regulation is 39 C.F.R. § 232: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title39/39-1.0.1.4.20.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

(p)(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

The ruling was in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and several other states.

- Jim

It says no person may carry. How is carry defined as it pertains to this regulation? If the firearm is not on your person, are you carrying?

[seamusTX]

In law, having contraband in your vehicle has long been considered carrying. Certainly having it in the passenger compartment where you can reach it is carrying. Having it in the trunk of a sedan or a locked box is debatable.

Mr. Dorosan was convicted of carrying by having a pistol in the glove compartment of his vehicle, when he was not in the vehicle.

This regulations is so rarely prosecuted that the nuances have not been tested in court.

- Jim

[casingpoint]

Four things are apparent about post offices from the following regulation:

1. Postal property is of two types. Unrestricted public areas, and restricted nonpublic areas which are defined by being closed to the public after hours.

2. Vehicles in public areas are not subject to search.
3. Vehicles in restricted nonpublic areas are subject to search.
4. A person in a public area is not subject to search of his or her person.

This implies one could have a handgun concealed on body or in a vehicle so long as they were in a public area.

39 CFR 232.1 (b) Inspection, recording presence.

(1) Purses, briefcases, and other containers brought into, while on, or being removed from the property are subject to inspection.

(2) Vehicles and their contents brought into, while on, or being removed from restricted nonpublic areas are subject to inspection. A prominently displayed sign shall advise in advance that vehicles and their contents are subject to inspection when entering the restricted nonpublic area, while in the confines of the area, or when leaving the area. Persons entering these areas who object and refuse to consent to the inspection of the vehicle, its contents, or both, may be denied entry; after entering the area without objection, consent shall be implied. A full search of a person and any vehicle driven or occupied by the person may accompany an arrest.

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

[seamusTX]

As I understand these regulations, persons and vehicles entering the non-public areas are subject to search without probable cause.

That is similar to the situation when you enter the secure area of a courthouse where they have metal detectors.

Anyone, anywhere, is subject to search by a law-enforcement officer within his jurisdiction with probable cause (and without a warrant).

I don't know what a person going about his business at a post office would do to give a federal LEO probable cause for a search.

- Jim

[Tavares]

I am not a lawyer, either. But I think the following deserves consideration:

• 1) Dorosan was not just "a man," he was an employee.
  
  2) The parking lot wasn't just a parking lot, it was a staging lot open only to employees and contractors.
  
  3) The appeal in question raises ONLY the question of Heller. The judges rejected it. In a situation involving an employer/employee contract, so would I.
  
  4) The original argument by Dorosan (at http://volokh.com/files/dorosan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) argued only the Second Amendment. It did not argue invalidity of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) as being unsupported by its enabling law, which is 18 USC 930. As Dorosan was an employee, he could not have successfully made this argument anyway, as his action was technically a trespass and therefore not "otherwise lawful."
  
  5) Judges won't rule on arguments you have not made.

In short, I don't believe this case is dispositive for the average citizen. That's not to say this claim is a "get out of jail free" card. It would cost you perhaps a hundred thousand dollars to pursue. I just think it is ultimately winnable if you can avoid running out of time or money first.

We know that the Post Office has been caught before establishing unsupportable regulations. For example, in the '90s it suddenly became fashionable for Post Offices to tell petitioners (non-partisan initiative or referendum petitions) they could not petition on PO property, even though this had been allowed since the days of Ben Franklin. I was personally threatened with arrest over this interpretation. After years of litigation, the regulation was vacated as entirely unconstitutional in all Post Offices, nationwide. The cite for that case is:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5045a.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoosier Daddy]

So when does this become different than the other post office debates?