If a post office doesn't have a 30.06 sign...

[PUCKER]

My CHL instructor, Crossfire, mentioned that. I'm curious, how do you go about establishing if it's a leased building?

Not all post offices are federal property. Most of them are leased buildings, especially the rural mom and pop post offices.

Ron

[dicion]

Tax records are always a good place to start

The question is, though, is it only Federally OWNED, or Federally Owned or Leased that affects us?

If I wasn't on my phone, I'd attempt to look up the federal laws regarding such.. maybe someone else can.

[mr.72]

The Federal "law" (rules) that "govern" carrying guns on Federal property are vague, unconstitutional, and likely at odds with the State law.

It is 39 CFR 232.1 ...

Sec. 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under
the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies,
and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall
be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.

...

(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) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules
and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are
imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate
in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such
rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region
involved.
(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 (p)(2) could imply that since these rules violate the TX CHL laws that they are not enforceable.

Interesting discussion here:

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gun- ... ffice.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PUCKER]

My local post office doesn't show up on the Tarrant Appraisal District site (meaning that the address does not exist in their records).

Tax records are always a good place to start

The question is, though, is it only Federally OWNED, or Federally Owned or Leased that affects us?

If I wasn't on my phone, I'd attempt to look up the federal laws regarding such.. maybe someone else can.

[mr.72]

Well, regardless of who owns it, the CFR refers to "all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service". So if the CFR applies, then it applies to any property that the Postal Service is using to conduct business regardless of who actually owns the property.

If it doesn't apply unless the Feds own the building, then it doesn't apply at all.

[joe817]

Well, as much as I respect every forum member's opinion, say what you will, I am not going to risk having to put up a $5,000 defense budget in my already stretched family budget to "test the waters". When I receive my license, it will remain in the car, until proved otherwise.

[Captain Matt]

It's cheaper to conceal good.

[Tass]

The Cypress post office is posted on the door that not only is the building off-limits per federal regulations, so is the parking lot (noticed that little gem when I went to get photos done for my renewal.).

Tass

[geoelectro]

I appreciate this forum where questions about the law can be flushed out and we all learn from them. However, do I understand that this rather simple question can't be accurately answered by some official? I know a law can be ambiguous as it is written and interpretation is required for each individual circumstance. But carrying in a Post Office is a yes/no answer in every case.

Geoelectro

[dicion]

I appreciate this forum where questions about the law can be flushed out and we all learn from them. However, do I understand that this rather simple question can't be accurately answered by some official? I know a law can be ambiguous as it is written and interpretation is required for each individual circumstance. But carrying in a Post Office is a yes/no answer in every case.

Geoelectro

If you mean an 'official' as in a postmaster, or LEO, I'm sure they can answer it, but their answer may not be correct.

The real answer is, this appears to fall in the 'grey area' that we all love to hate. Certain parts of the law seem to hint that it's allowed, but using broad non-defined terms.

The only way this can be cleared up is by a test case, plain and simple.

[dicion]

mr. 72, that's an interesting thread you linked, however it appears to be quite old. I wonder if the laws have changed since then?

I did a little research as well, found some info.
First, read this page (it's a reader, yes, but it basically outlines the whole debacle):

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conceale ... -awakening" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now.. This is for OHIO.. Their Determination at the end of this article is that Since it does not directly conflict with any OHIO Statutes, that they are banned.
Eg, there is nothing in OHIO that says the Post Office HAS to allow concealed carry, so therefore no conflict.

TEXAS is a Different Story! We have TPC 30.06(e). This, in my opinion, Directly conflicts with 39 CFR 232.1, by stating that Government owned property is an EXCEPTION, and no matter what, CHL's cannot be barred from it. 39 CFR 232.1 itself 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."

So... after all the above legalease... I think that CHL Carrying is lawful inside a post office in the state of Texas.

Now, lawful and 'wont get you arrested' are two different things, remember

Charles, I know you're all busy being the new Head Honcho up there at the TSRA , but do you have any opinion on this?

[03Lightningrocks]

It's cheaper to conceal good.

[03Lightningrocks]

Maybe I shouldn't post this, if it is trouble, a mod can maybe delete the post. When I saw no sign, I did not disarm. My son, who is going to law school and paranoid about any criminal conviction that might screw up his future legal career, was feeling pretty sure that I was not suppose to carry in there. He has a CHL, didn't carry into the place, and said he wouldn't be willing to risk the trouble. I have NEVER been outed while carrying concealed. The odds of me being busted are somewhere between slim and none. In the very unlikely event that a postal worker with x-ray vision catches me, I am feeling pretty sure it would end up not being an issue. Now if I pull it out and demand service with a smile, all bets are off.

Who knows...I may get to be a test case some day.

[mr.72]

mr. 72, that's an interesting thread you linked, however it appears to be quite old. I wonder if the laws have changed since then?

Well I quoted from the actual current CFR from the usgov web site in my post so I think these are the current laws.

I did a little research as well, found some info.
First, read this page (it's a reader, yes, but it basically outlines the whole debacle):
...

TEXAS is a Different Story! We have TPC 30.06(e). This, in my opinion, Directly conflicts with 39 CFR 232.1, by stating that Government owned property is an EXCEPTION, and no matter what, CHL's cannot be barred from it. 39 CFR 232.1 itself 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."

And just for clarity I will quote 30.06(e):

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carres a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

46.03 being schools, courthouses, polling places, racetrack, secure area of an airport, etc. 46.035 is intentional failure to conceal, 51%, school/pro sporting event, carrying while intoxicated. So these don't apply specifically to a post office.

FWIW I agree. And further from the specifics of 30.06(e), the entire theme of 30.06 is that unless posted with a 30.06 sign or given verbal notice, basically no property except those listed (46.03/46.035) can prohibit the lawful carrying of a firearm by a licensee. 30.06(e) just restricts government entities from keeping you out even with effective notice.

The problems I can foresee are as follows:

1. the Feds are going to say that their CFR overrules state law. Now, I can't see how this is possible since the CFR specifically says that if the rule is in conflict with the state law then state law prevails. But this is a fight for the courts to deal with, and not one you are going to win while being confronted by the postmaster in the lobby of the post office. You may beat the rap but it's going to be quite a costly ride.

2. somehow they are going to say the postal service is not a "governmental entity". The USPS likes to play both sides of this fence. They seem to claim to be a private company, a government-sponsored monopoly, and also a part of the government itself, whenever it suits them. The counterargument here is that if they are not a governmental entity, then why would the CFR apply anyway? If they are not a governmental entity then certainly the TX State Law applies, which would mean they have to post a 30.06 sign like any other private business. If they want to claim that the CFR overrules state law then they have to make the claim that they are a governmental entity in the first place, which puts us back at #1.

Either way if you are caught carrying a gun in a post office, the parking lot, to your neighborhood mailbox facility, or any other place where USPS employees are doing business, then you are at risk of winding up in what may prove to be a complicated legal case to say the least. But as far as I can tell, for anyone making a logical, rational reading of these laws (rare as that may be; we are talking about lawyers here), it is clear that the CFR explicitly yields to state law and state law prevents the USPS from denying lawful concealed carry in the post office.

I might add, regarding disarming in the parking lot, that this is your most opportune time to get "caught". If the building is off-limits, then so is the parking lot. I mean, if the CFR is in force, then the "real property" is what is covered, and that includes the entirety of the land and property including the parking lot. You are likely to expose your handgun while disarming in the car so some passerby has a chance to see it or suspect something, maybe run inside and say "hey there is a MAN WITH A GUN in the parking lot!!!"

If the parking lot is not covered, then neither is the building or any part of it, since all of it is the "real property".

Personally, I avoid the post office. But when I have to go, I usually have forgotten whether or not I am carrying and don't care to remember before I turn into the parking lot.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

priusron:
My understanding of US Post Offices is that the majority of them are leased from
someone, and not the property of the US Postal Service, GSA, or any other federal entity.

But for the purposes of going in armed, I believe that they still constitute federal property,
and hence, we must disarm.

Now in the case of a small grocery store in a rural town that happens to be the local post office,
I don't know what to think about that since the building is not 100% dedicated to post office biz.

SIA