Post office

[LarryArnold]

Sounds like we need reciprocity with the Feds. Don't hold your breath.

Wouldn't hurt to mention it to your Congresscritter, though.

[Greybeard]

Yep, Cap'n Dave nailed it on definition of "Mail & More" places. And it can be a tough biz, but I've had two CHL students over the years who operate 'em and seem to do OK - with a lot of hard work and reasonable rent in a high traffic location.

And yea, they are somewhat more expensive than dealing with big shippers directly or the post office. Pricing sometimes like the difference between a regular grocery store and a convenice store. But I pay it just for the "convenience" of leaving the handgun where it is.

[Lindy]

I was in the League City post office yesterday. Posted next to the front door was a sign saying that it was illegal to have firearms and other "dangerous weapons" on postal service property, including the parking lot and in vehicles. I would guess that enforcement of that ban, if you leave your firearm in the car, is pretty unlikely. As someone else surmised, it seems to me like a sign that is directed more toward the post office employees rather than the public.

[LarryArnold]

Reminds me of a company where I worked where the policy was "no illegal or dangerous weapons on company property." I had a friendly discussion over lunch one time with the HR guy where I held that my legally concealed handgun was neither of those things.

He responded with the "we'd be sued if anyone got shot" argument. I countered with "you'd probably be sued if someone got attacked and a licensee could have prevented it."

He agreed, but noted that the first had happened, while the second was still just a possibility.

Luckily for both of us (he was licensed too) the parking lot in this particular case wasn't "company property."

[ElGato]

I am impressed by the posts here and some of you are on my do not skip, must read list.
Tomcat

[govtman]

Federal property falls under one of three different kinds of jurisdiction and I can only think of two of them right now but they are proprietary and concurrent but it does not matter what type they have, all federal laws apply as well as some state laws depending on the type of jurisdiction.

I wish I knew where to look up the exact law but it is in 18 USC.

You’re thinking of exclusive, concurrent, and proprietary jurisdiction.

Moreover, the law is contained in 18 USC §930. As others have pointed out, the law requires notice by a sign at each entrance and there is a “lawful purposes� exception to the prohibition. However, there has been no case law stating that the simple carrying of a firearm, without committed a crime, is a “lawful purpose�.

Nevertheless, what most people don’t know about is 39 CFR 232.1(l). That provision, in the Code of Federal Regulations, prohibits all carrying of weapons but has an exception for “official purposes�, and I haven’t seen an interpretation of what are “official purposes�. Now, there has been debate as to whether the CFR provision oversteps the authority granted to the USPS by the US Code, and if that is the case then 39 CFR 232.1(l) is null and void.