dicion wrote: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.
, but do you have any opinion on this?
