TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

pt145ss wrote:

Keith B wrote: I think the fact that 39 § 232 specifically addresses the postal service property is what would supercede the individual pieces of the overall code.

Ok...Because 18 USC 930 does not specifically say "Post Office" and only referes to "Federal Facility" and Because 39 USC 410 say "
all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service"...the post office can write their own code in regards to weapons on the property...correct? That almost makes sense and I can almost follow that. However, what gets me, is that evertime i see a sign in a post office, it referes to 18 USC 930...but that does not apply to the post office given the logic above. One would think they would reference their Code of Federal Regulations in the case 39 CFR 232 instead of 18 USC 930 which has nothing to do with them.

Confusing ain't it!! LOL That is the problem with overlapping and ambiguous codes, statues and laws with no case law to set precedence or an AG opinion to define clarify the intent and provide guidance. That is what keeps the lawyers in bidness.

Some of those CFRs for the post office are darn near unconsitutional with all the implied consent to search and barely a word about probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

I was fairly convinced at first that there was no way they could prevent carry in a parking lot given they are a "Federal Facility" especially given how they reference 18 USC 930. I'm glad you guys challenged me to research the codes for myself (the Ohio lawyer thing lost me a bit). After looking it all over, I'm fairly conviced that the postal property in its entirety is off limits. That is until there is some case law that challenges that.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

Keith B wrote:

csmintx wrote:I guess my question would be, just how would anyone know there was a weapon in your vehicle if it is concealed? There must be probable cause for any search.

It is not whether you will get found out and caught, it is whether it is legal in the first place. I think this gets lost with a lot of folks today that it is more of what can I get away with vs. is it the right thing to do.

That is an important point that gets lost sometimes. Thanks to Keith B for reminding us. The highest law in this country says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, any federal rule, regulation, fatwa or edict (short of a constitutional amendment) that would infringe that right is not valid law. The right thing to do is ignore those unconstitutional laws. In practice, most of us cannot afford to be the test case. So, chosing to keep it concealed is a valid tactic to avoid entanglement by an illegal rule, regulation, fatwa or edict.

zaroffhunts wrote:

Keith B wrote:

csmintx wrote:I guess my question would be, just how would anyone know there was a weapon in your vehicle if it is concealed? There must be probable cause for any search.

It is not whether you will get found out and caught, it is whether it is legal in the first place. I think this gets lost with a lot of folks today that it is more of what can I get away with vs. is it the right thing to do.

That is an important point that gets lost sometimes. Thanks to Keith B for reminding us. The highest law in this country says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Therefore, any federal rule, regulation, fatwa or edict (short of a constitutional amendment) that would infringe that right is not valid law. The right thing to do is ignore those unconstitutional laws. In practice, most of us cannot afford to be the test case. So, chosing to keep it concealed is a valid tactic to avoid entanglement by an illegal rule, regulation, fatwa or edict.

Not to stray too far off topic.........................

I am a firm believer in Jury Nullification. Instances such as the Post Office being able to 'write their own law' coupled with over reaching prosecutors requires the citizens to stand up put an end to the personal and political agendas.

http://fija.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163877,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keith B wrote:

csmintx wrote:I guess my question would be, just how would anyone know there was a weapon in your vehicle if it is concealed? There must be probable cause for any search.

It is not whether you will get found out and caught, it is whether it is legal in the first place. I think this gets lost with a lot of folks today that it is more of what can I get away with vs. is it the right thing to do.

But also, what is legal isnt necessarily right. If we took that attitude on everything then nothing would get changed. Carrying into the post office has a decent chance of being caught by printing, wind blowing, etc. There is no reason to ever search a car of a normal postal patron so the chance is nil. I believe in rules but none of us follow all the laws 100% of the time, it is impossible. It is against the law to change a socket in my house without a city permit and inspection but who here is going to go to that much trouble and hassle. PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

pt145ss wrote:I was fairly convinced at first that there was no way they could prevent carry in a parking lot given they are a "Federal Facility" especially given how they reference 18 USC 930. I'm glad you guys challenged me to research the codes for myself (the Ohio lawyer thing lost me a bit). After looking it all over, I'm fairly conviced that the postal property in its entirety is off limits. That is until there is some case law that challenges that.

I guess you learn something new everyday.

I don't read it exactly that way. I don't think that the CFR can overrride the elements of the crime defined in the statute (18 USC 930), which defines "facility" as a building and not the property. So I don't think you could be convicted under 18 USC 930 for having a gun in the parking lot.

There is a penalty defined in the CFR for violating postal regulations... and it is $50 fine/up to 30 days in jail that can be imposed by a federal magistrate.

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

I prefer the first option, myself. Like I said in my CHL class, I'll cheerfully be a test case for the right reasons, but challenging the details of federal firearms law isn't one of them.

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

Or the other way is to be assaulted and/or injured while on property and not carrying - then file a suit.

terryg wrote:

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

Or the other way is to be assaulted and/or injured while on property and not carrying - then file a suit.

That's a valid option if you survive, yeah.

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

Hopefully the legislator route.

ScottDLS wrote:I don't read it exactly that way. I don't think that the CFR can overrride the elements of the crime defined in the statute (18 USC 930), which defines "facility" as a building and not the property. So I don't think you could be convicted under 18 USC 930 for having a gun in the parking lot.

There is a penalty defined in the CFR for violating postal regulations... and it is $50 fine/up to 30 days in jail that can be imposed by a federal magistrate.

Ok...so if they do not covict you under 18 USC 930, then they will convict under 39 CFR 232. Is that a misdemeanor? How will that effect your CHL?

Dave2 wrote:

terryg wrote:

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

Or the other way is to be assaulted and/or injured while on property and not carrying - then file a suit.

That's a valid option if you survive, yeah.

Sue the Post Office/Federal Government because you got assaulted on government property? Good luck with that.

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

This is the point WildBill. Even if we don't like a law and feel it is invalid in itself, IMO it is still the law, and you should do everything you can to abide by that law. Now, I am not saying roll over and play dead when it comes to trying to get it changed. The proper way to get statutes and legislation changed it to fight it through the system that is established. Is it sometime a long or almost impossible road? Yes, but many times one voice speaking up can make a difference. And if that voice can reach enough folks and garner their support, it is kinda like the old ladies hair color commercial from the 60's; 'And they tell two of their friends, and then those two tell two of THEIR friends...' and soon you have one large voice to fight with.

WildBill wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

terryg wrote:

WildBill wrote:

rm9792 wrote:PO parking lot is mauch ado about nothing, however carry inside should be fought for because the law is wrong.

The big question is "how do you fight for it?" Call and write your legislators or get arrested and go to court, get convicted and appeal?

Or the other way is to be assaulted and/or injured while on property and not carrying - then file a suit.

That's a valid option if you survive, yeah.

Sue the Post Office/Federal Government because you got assaulted on government property? Good luck with that.

Can't we sue other venues because we were assaulted on their property? Why should the PO/Feds be special? In any case, that's not what I was talking about. You sue them because their asinine policy prevented you from defending yourself. The hard part will be proving that you would not have been injured if you were armed. Even then, nothing is guaranteed.

I still vote for calling or writing your legislator. Heck, run for office if you think you've got a chance.