Post Office off-limits?

[RedRaider]

Regardless of anyone's advice given in this thread, be real careful if you do carry in the Post Office as some have metal detectors. Just my thought.

[couzin]

The CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.

You are incorrect - Federal laws (those in the United States Code (USC), are the 'authority' (the 'Act') under which regulations are established (e.g. the USC (or Act, or Statute, or Law) says that something is illegal, or that such and such will occur, but does not give specifics, and a regulation is developed which does define specifics). Congress establishes the 'laws' and it is up to the individual agencies (generally) to develop regulations as to how they will deal with the statute. Example, while the Act (USC) to establish Social Security (Public Law 271, 74th Congress, Aug 14 1935) set out some specifics in the original law, it did not cover every contingency - the regulations found at 20 CFR Part 400 were developed later for that purpose. The regulations guide everyday operations. The logic?, the logic is this, Laws are established by Congress, a change at the agency level would require a Congressional change in the law opening an even bigger can of worms. Regulations on the other hand are developed by the agency and can be changed relatively easy - as long as they are based on some foundation as found in the original Act.

This forum is beginning to look like 'Findlaw'....

[TC-TX]

No couzin - I AM correct...

You are free to interpret as you choose.
I choose to investigate and interpret the statute and conditions correctly.

CCW into a Post Office - unless posted 30.06 OR unless there is a State Ordinance applicable specifically to CCW - is Legal.

That is not to say there are lots of opinions and rumor running around.

The fact remains, bad information and mis-information are not binding in any way. You are free to choose as you wish.

There is NO provision in the USC that prohibits legal carry in a federal facility (exception: courthouse). It is CLEARLY STATED within the code

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

There is confusing wording within the CFR that may have one concerned, but if you read the COMPLETE section it CLEARLY STATES

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.

IN OTHER WORDS, the conditions contained within the CFR can NOT abrogate (annul) the conditions in the USC. Period.

I am not suggesting all defining Codes have this clause but this one Certainly Does.

[Venus Pax]

What must a sign include to be considered legal notice under 18 USC 930?[quote][/quote]

[TC-TX]

Since there is strict wording (in Texas anyway) regarding the topic, I would say:

1) if a valid 30.06 is posted - STAY OUT

2) if anything other than 30.06 is posted that specifically states Lawful Carry Not Permitted - or something like it - (being a Federal Installation) I would say this too would warrant a valid notice to STAY OUT (although this could be argued quite eloquently as invalid in court).

3) If something is posted prohibiting UNLAWFUL Carry, I say no poblem - CCW if you choose.

[couzin]

No couzin - I AM correct... You are free to interpret as you choose. I choose to investigate and interpret the statute and conditions correctly.

Ok - one more time and then you win. A regulation is a form of secondary legislation which is used to implement a primary piece of legislation appropriately, or to take account of particular circumstances or factors emerging during the gradual implementation of, or during the period of, a primary piece of legislation. Again, the law, the Act, the USC, whatever, is the primary piece of legislation, the regulation is promulgated to implement that piece of legislation. I used social security earlier - but try this - the Clean Water Act (33USC1251 et seq) is the primary legislation (i.e. 'the law'). Section 404 (33USC1344) of the Act sets out the Permits and Licensing language for disposing of dredged material and names the US Army Corps of Engineers as the oversight agency for those permits and licenses. It stops there (beyond all the righteous language anyway). The Corps of Engineers has developed, because the Act requires it, regulations (33CFR320) that implement the legislation, citing as the authority for the regulation - among other sections - 33USC1344. You with me? I am not about challenging someone who wants to carry into the post office. I am saying that you are incorrect in saying that a regulation is attempting to trump the primary legislation, it is actually creating rules to follow that original legislation. In this case the chicken comes after the egg. If someone wants to challenge the post office, or any other federal agency, regarding the lawful carry portion of the USC or the interpretation of a regulation as meaningless, then by all means have at it. I would gladly give to a defense fund - this needs to be resolved one way or another. Unfortunately, I just don't hold out hope that such a challenge would prevail. Similarly to an earlier post, and because I believe Federal laws and regulations mean what they say in plain language, I ain't gonna risk it.

[TC-TX]

couzin - please stay on topic. OTHER Regulations have NO BEARING on this particular item.

I know the law AND I understand it.

PLEASE read what is posted and not what you want it to say.

The FACT remains the REGULATION ITSELF SPECIFICALLY STATES it does NOT annul the USC...It can NOT be more plain...

Think what you wish.

[Kalrog]

TC-TX: I don't know exactly what your beef is here, but you are certainly coming across a bit abrasive. The thing is that there is no case law on this, either way, so we are practicing interpretation where the courts haven't gone yet.

Couzin has been here a while, but you are new. Might be a good idea to play it a bit more slowly to learn a place prior to starting flame wars.

[TC-TX]

Kalrog - I have no beef here- I just wish people would refrain from posting half-truths and erroneous information as fact. If that is abrasive, then I apologize. As an instructor in several disciplines, I have a responsiblilty to stick to facts.

What are you thinking? Do you think this is a NEW ISSUE??? Where have you been?

There IS, in fact NO EVIDENCE of prosecution on this matter, because the DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION is WITHIN THE CODE, hence my point. It is Very Difficult to prosecute someone for an act that is Not Illegal. There is PLENTY of law AND PLENTY of legal opinions and reviews that lead to the same conclusion I have provided here.

The circumstances surrounding this issue have been documented and played out ad nauseum for those who wish to do their homework. Again, this is NOT a new issue.

I have done my homework.

I have no need to practice interpretation - that is a dangerous exercise especially when the law is clear for those who read it and spend the time necessary to understand it.

NOW - please tell me where Post Count is pertinant to the validity of a discussion? If you are trying to imply that my position is any less valid because of my time on this forum, You sir, need to leave your bias and your prejudice at the door. I have never heard a more rediculous statement.

I have NO intention of starting flame wars so please refrain from the accusatory tone and false accusation - I STATED EARLY ON that YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE YOUR OUR INTERPRETATION.

The OP asked a question. I responded to the question in fact. I provided proof for the stated position.

If that came off as offensive or if that seems ABRASIVE - PLEASE tell me where.

May I suggest you refrain from slamming a poster just because he is New to this particular Forum or because you disagree with the facts he posts... It makes one look very closed-minded in their thinking.

You are free to disagree with my post, but you are NOT free to impugn my character nor my information just because you do not agree with it.

I look forward to Constructive Conversation in the future.

[JohnKSa]

Here's some information (written by a lawyer) which seems to back up TC-TX's assertions.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[TC-TX]

Thank you Charles - I believe you have validated every point I made...

I never said there were not other opinions...

I said there was overwhelming evidence to favor my position.

I also said - and repeat - we all must make the choice on our own. I believe it is best to choose from a position of knowledge and not from a position of speculation.

Make it a Great Day!

[carlson1]

Okay, talk about the issue, not the poster. . . .
Again, let's keep the discussion on the issue not people.Chas.

I think we are forgetting this more and more. Try to remember it is the "principle and not personality."

[KBCraig]

Thank you Charles - I believe you have validated every point I made...

Please report to "Reading Comprehension 101".

[TC-TX]

Please report to "Reading Comprehension 101".

KB - What - precisely - is this supposed to mean?