Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

[RPB]

This is an interesting topic and the law suit may solve the problem. My solution is to just not go to
the post office. Buy your stamps online. They will come in the mail. If you're reading this you probably
have internet access. Ship your packages UPS, FedEx, etc. They will even come to your door and pick
them up. I once banked at a bank that prohibited customers from carrying legally concealed weapons. No
problem, changed banks.

When the CHL first passed here in Texas Wolf Camera put signs in their windows. They weren't the legal
signs but the intent was clear. I, and others, wrote the President of Wolf Camera. The signs came down
and we all received several booklets for free photo developing.

Legal challenges are good, legal activism is good. Don't put yourself at risk. Stay out of the post office and
let the know they are losing your business. Perhaps an entity already deeply in the red might take another
look at this policy.

To the chagriin of 2 of my retired from the Post Office cousins, I buy stamps at HEB, and mail stuff in my box in my yard with the red flag up. I ship via UPS or Fedex. Most bills, Discover card I drive to Sears and pay, Utilities, I drive to the city and pay.

To pacify my cousins, I do mail stuff when some Insurance or other company sends me a "Business reply envelope" ... I send them coupons I won't use. (They might could use 20 cents off this or that.)

[RPB]

I'm still curious how someone could be actively engaged in hunting in a PO. Even after Charles' explanation of "incident to" I still don't see the distinction between hunting and defending one's self in a PO. Saying that no one goes into a PO actively defending themselves can also be said of hunting. What would I be actively hunting in a PO?

Section 18 U.S.C. concerns any Federal facility, not just Post Offices. I believe it is also is the statue that the COE uses to enforce no firearms on lakes under their control.

+ Federal Wildlife Preserves etc where sometimes feral hogs etc need thinning.

[ScottDLS]

I'm still curious how someone could be actively engaged in hunting in a PO. Even after Charles' explanation of "incident to" I still don't see the distinction between hunting and defending one's self in a PO. Saying that no one goes into a PO actively defending themselves can also be said of hunting. What would I be actively hunting in a PO?

Section 18 U.S.C. concerns any Federal facility, not just Post Offices. I believe it is also is the statue that the COE uses to enforce no firearms on lakes under their control.

18 USC 930 only applies to Federal Buildings...not property generally. There are other regulations that apply to property.

[RPB]

I'm trying to think of an instance where one would hunt in a building then.
[youtube][/youtube]

[C-dub]

Always funny, but also scary. Happens several times a year around the country. If one were in a PO when something like this happened a gun might also be needed for self defense. There are also cases where a wild animal has attacked a person inside of a building.

[b322da]

18 USC 930 only applies to Federal Buildings...not property generally.

Scott,

Could I ask for your support for this statement, preferably, of course, in federal law or federal court decision(s)? Please understand that I am not necessarily questioning your statement. I, for unrelated reasons, would be interested in support for your position.

Elmo

[ScottDLS]

18 USC 930 only applies to Federal Buildings...not property generally.

Scott,

Could I ask for your support for this statement, preferably, of course, in federal law or federal court decision(s)? Please understand that I am not necessarily questioning your statement. I, for unrelated reasons, would be interested in support for your position.

Elmo

The statute itself is partially quoted below and contains a definition for "Federal Facility" which supports my statement. Second, in US vs. Dorosan, where a postal employee was convicted for having a gun on post office "property", I noticed that the US attorney amended the information (charging document for a misdemeanor) to replace 18 USC 930 with 39 CFR 232.

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
...
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

[b322da]

The statute itself is partially quoted below and contains a definition for "Federal Facility" which supports my statement. Second, in US vs. Dorosan, where a postal employee was convicted for having a gun on post office "property", I noticed that the US attorney amended the information (charging document for a misdemeanor) to replace 18 USC 930 with 39 CFR 232.

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
...
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

Tks, Scott. It sure helps to read the whole statute.

Elmo

[baldeagle]

Firearms are required for hunting (except bow season) unless you are really really fast and can run down your prey and stab it, so they are "incident to" lawful hunting. The same cannot be said for a CHL carrying in a post office. Having a gun on your side is not "incident to" any other lawful purpose such as buying stamps, shipping a package, checking a PO box, or anything else you're going to do in a post office. Some have argued that you are carrying it "incident to" lawful self-defense, but this argument fails because you are not engaged in self-defense when you walk into a Post Office. You are prepared to engage in self-defense if attacked, but you are not engaged in the act of self-defense when you enter the post office. The only way 18 U.S.C. 930(c) would apply is if you are attacked and flee into a PO with your handgun. Then you are actively engaged in the lawful act of self-defense.

Who hunts in a post office?

[lrb111]

Who hunts in a post office?

if going "Postal" counts, there's been at least a dozen?


sorry, devil made me do it.
Those accounts were actually just taking advantage of free fire zones.

[austin-tatious]

Legal challenges are good, legal activism is good. Don't put yourself at risk. Stay out of the post office and
let the know they are losing your business. Perhaps an entity already deeply in the red might take another
look at this policy.

I'm convinced they really don't care...at least the people behind the desk of any post office I've been in don't care. I'm not saying they don't do the job, and they can be helpful with your needs...they just take their sweet time. I hope there are exceptions in your post office. But they certainly don't care about the right to self-defense.

[rdcrags]

in any other state where open carry is lawful, one then can open carry lawfully, since he is breaking no law and thus all can carry in Post Office.

Not in Colorado, I assure you.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Some have argued that you are carrying it "incident to" lawful self-defense, but this argument fails because you are not engaged in self-defense when you walk into a Post Office. You are prepared to engage in self-defense if attacked, but you are not engaged in the act of self-defense when you enter the post office.

Am I only "engaged in hunting" when I pull the trigger, or when I'm walking through the woods looking for game as well? Condition yellow indicates actively watching for threats, so it would seem to be "engaging in self defense."

No, your mind set (condition yellow or otherwise) is not engaging in self-defense. The operative words in the Code are "incident to" not "hunting."

Chas.

[Pawpaw]

So "incident to other lawful purposes" would not apply to lawfully carrying a concealed a handgun?

It makes sense to me that it would, but (of course) you are the expert here.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Well, I'm not sure of my inference in a legal sense,
or just a comedic sense, but it seems from the descriptive
legal text above:

We could all go into a Post Office with a Remington 700 in a
deer-endangering caliber,

BUT

we can't go in there with our sidearms and CHL's.

Are we all clear now? :-)

SIA