| Author | Post |
|---|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 21st, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
Count wrote: Mike,
. The U.S.C appears to allow carrying for other lawful purposes including hunting. Has that lawful purpose been defined by any higher courts yet? Why is that the same law only requires federal buildings to post the first two paragrahphs that talk about the prohibition and not the second part of that statute that talks about allowing it for lawful purposes?
Read section 101 of the GCA of 1968. My reason is personal protection. Bold in quote is my emphasis.
Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.
Link: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm
Last edited on Wed Oct 21st, 2009 09:30 pm by Thundar
|
ecocks
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | Meridian, Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 228 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22nd, 2009 11:24 pm |
|
And how does this figure into the equation:
Title 18 section 930.h states...
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
I was at a PO today and was assured it's illegal and hunters should know to park out on the street, yet there are NO notices posted at entrances, bulletin boards, counters or parking areas. Four years ago, I asked the PO in Silverdale, WA about this and was told if they wanted to, they could post but they had chosen not to. I was behind the counter in the Passport office and they emphasized that it was NOT allowed behind the counter in the employee area and only employees of the Postal Inspection group (division, whatever) or LEO's were allowed to carry behind the counter.
Thoughts?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 12:10 am |
|
ecocks wrote: And how does this figure into the equation:
Title 18 section 930.h states...
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
This section does not figure into anything unless you are being charged under this section.
|
Tex4OC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 03:05 am |
|
On the plus side, the U.S Postal Service is going broke, so we won't have to worry about their parking lots much longer. I have never seen such signs at a Fed-Ex, or UPS location yet. Private industry: The Foundation of this country. Just my .02.
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23rd, 2009 07:21 am |
|
Well, everyone, fuss, fuss, fuss!! I'm not going to give th usps LEOs ANY trouble. There's a VERY CLEAR warning on all their vehicles:
POSTAL POLICE 
Ye gods.
|
cbxer55
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 24th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
Hmmm, back in 2003 when I first got my CCW, the post office had the usual no guns sign on the front door, in plain sight of anyone who entered.
Later on, I went there and the sign was gone. Nowhere to be seen. I later found it way up high, you have to crane your neck to see it, above the bulletin board, in a corner that most folks probably never even visit.
What is the strategy in doing this? Entrapment?
|
okboomer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
Not sure about that, but I have noticed that at a couple of the branches of my bank do not have a sign banning CC, others have it and it is always posted in the same area of each ... makes you go hmmmmmmm
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 11:47 am |
|
ecocks wrote: I was at a PO today and was assured it's illegal and hunters should know to park out on the street,
Is it illegal under Idaho law, then? It's not illegal under New Hampshire state law. You shouldn't take legal advice from government employees.
The case in this thread is about an employee of the postal service in a private parking lot, not a member of the general public in a public parking lot.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 07:17 pm |
|
mvpel wrote: ecocks wrote: I was at a PO today and was assured it's illegal and hunters should know to park out on the street,
Is it illegal under Idaho law, then? It's not illegal under New Hampshire state law.
so what? it is illegal under federal law.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 11:21 am |
|
No, it's not.
As much as the feds want to ignore it, there is an exception in the law for "hunting or other lawful purposes." And it's well-supported in case law and statute that lawfully licensed or other lawful carry of firearms for the purpose of personal protection is a "lawful purpose." See above.
Ignorant police officers may very well arrest you for it, but police are still arresting people for desecrating American flags too: http://www.semissourian.com/story/1581533.html - from last Sunday.
Last edited on Tue Oct 27th, 2009 11:25 am by mvpel
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 01:51 pm |
|
| I would agree that in totality it is legal but when it comes to practice you will be charged under the CFR and not Ttle 18. No LEO or prosecuting attorney is going to pour over sections of federal law not contained in the section they are citing. If there are no exemptions for you under the section they are attempting to cite you, their job is done and it is off to court.
|
JKTex
Opt-Out Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 03:39 pm |
|
This topic always stirs a lot of emotion but more so, a lot of craziness. 
Some of you speak as if this is somehting new. It may be new to you, but it's not new by any means.
Also, property means real property owned by or under the control of the USPS. A public street or sidewalk is not either.
Local LEO's are not exempt unless they are on official duty. The verbiage is there I just to recall exactly what it is. However, I think most local LEO's are almost as clueless as most of us, the public, in regards to this.
Also, walk into a USPS facility carrying and see who's going to charge you. Local LEO's are not Federal LE and as far as I know, have no jurisdiction on Federal property.
If you'll dig in to it, there was a study done to find any and all cases of someone being charged with possession of a firearm on USPS property and not one was a citizen. If I recall, there ws 1 case where the person was charged and convicted and that was an employee who had a handgun in a bag and carried it into the building and stored in an employee locker. He wasn't a crazy, just someone who wasn't thinking and forgot it was there.
I'm sure there may be other cases but the point is, this topic is about as goofy as can be but then again, it's our Fed. Government and the USPS so what do you expect.
I just make sure I leave mine in the truck when I go in, just in case the metal detectors for once are working correctly.
Oh, someone mentioned carrying in other federal buildings including courts?? If you conceal carry, I hope you spend some time and understand what you can and cannot do in YOUR state. Blanket statements get those who are too lazy to learn their own states laws, into deep doo doo. I don't know of a case yet was won based on, "...but this guy on the internet said I could...". 
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 06:44 pm |
|
mvpel wrote: No, it's not.
As much as the feds want to ignore it, there is an exception in the law for "hunting or other lawful purposes."
That exception is in another law - 18 USC 930. There is no such exception in the postal reg. Come on folks...
|
Lammo
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
okboomer wrote: The Fifth Circuit panel disagreed, writing that
[size=“the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the ‘sensitive places’ exception recognized by Heller.”]
[size=The Court did not indicate whether the Second Amendment would protect gun owners from prosecution if they possess a gun in the public areas of USPS property.]
2 quick questions: 1) do you know the name of the 5th Circuit case (I don't see it anywhere in this thread) 2) was the USPS employee a CCW holder?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 02:24 am |
|
Lammo wrote: okboomer wrote: The Fifth Circuit panel disagreed, writing that
[size=“the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the ‘sensitive places’ exception recognized by Heller.”]
[size=The Court did not indicate whether the Second Amendment would protect gun owners from prosecution if they possess a gun in the public areas of USPS property.]
2 quick questions: 1) do you know the name of the 5th Circuit case (I don't see it anywhere in this thread) 2) was the USPS employee a CCW holder?
Did you read the aerticle at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-US-Postal-Service-enforces-gun-ban-in-public-parking-lots
?
|
Lammo
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:41 am |
|
Mike wrote:
Did you read the aerticle at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-US-Postal-Service-enforces-gun-ban-in-public-parking-lots
?
I did, but after I posted my questions. The article answers Question 1. It does not answer Question 2. I'll look the case up through WestLaw - - the District Court Magistrate's opinion on the dismissal motion does not say.
P.S. - - the defendant's name was Dorosan.
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 05:06 am by Lammo
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:41 pm |
|
Lammo wrote: Mike wrote:
Did you read the aerticle at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-US-Postal-Service-enforces-gun-ban-in-public-parking-lots
?
I did, but after I posted my questions. The article answers Question 1. It does not answer Question 2. I'll look the case up through WestLaw - - the District Court Magistrate's opinion on the dismissal motion does not say.
P.S. - - the defendant's name was Dorosan.
Typo corrected, thanks.
By "CCW holder" you probably mean holder of a sort of gun carry license? I never understood use of this confusing term, CCW - is not helpful.
In any event, possession of a state license to carry a gun usually has nothing to do with storing guns in vehicle under state law, let alone federal law. The postal reg is clear - they do not give a hoot about state gun carry licenses - citizens are banned from possessing a gun on postal property anywhere anytime, period - but the ATF says you can mail long guns there. . .
|
Lammo
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:55 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Lammo wrote: Mike wrote:
Did you read the aerticle at http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d19-US-Postal-Service-enforces-gun-ban-in-public-parking-lots
?
I did, but after I posted my questions. The article answers Question 1. It does not answer Question 2. I'll look the case up through WestLaw - - the District Court Magistrate's opinion on the dismissal motion does not say.
P.S. - - the defendant's name was Dorosan.
Typo corrected, thanks.
By "CCW holder" you probably mean holder of a sort of gun carry license? I never understood use of this confusing term, CCW - is not helpful.
In any event, possession of a state license to carry a gun usually has nothing to do with storing guns in vehicle under state law, let alone federal law. The postal reg is clear - they do not give a hoot about state gun carry licenses - citizens are banned from possessing a gun on postal property anywhere anytime, period - but the ATF says you can mail long guns there. . .
CCW - - general term meaning Carry Concealed Weapon. Not necessarily a good term but I see it all over the place. In WA we used to have CWPs - Concealed Weapon Permits. Now we have CPLs - Concealed Pistol Licenses (guess that means you can't conceal a revolver). I was just curious whether Mr. Dorosan was otherwise in compliance with state law - - lawfully in possession of a weapon in a vehicle so long as not on Federal property. In WA you cannot carry or place a loaded handgun in a vehicle unless you have a CPL. I agree with you that the postal reg is clear but I believe it is wrong. I am also not sure about CFRs superseding the US Code or controlling in the case of a conflict between the two. IAAL and I don't recall ever learning that one.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 02:04 am |
|
Lammo wrote: I agree with you that the postal reg is clear but I believe it is wrong. I am also not sure about CFRs superseding the US Code or controlling in the case of a conflict between the two. IAAL and I don't recall ever learning that one.
What conflict? There is no conflict. One specific law is just tougher than the other general law.
|
Lammo
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 30th, 2009 04:30 am |
|
Mike wrote: Lammo wrote: I agree with you that the postal reg is clear but I believe it is wrong. I am also not sure about CFRs superseding the US Code or controlling in the case of a conflict between the two. IAAL and I don't recall ever learning that one.
What conflict? There is no conflict. One specific law is just tougher than the other general law. Well, where I come from, out here in the West, the conflict is clear. The rule is more restrictive of a person's rights than the statute covering the same subject. In my state (WA) administrative agencies are not allowed to create rules that conflict with statutes (Administrative rules may not contradict legislative enactments. Edelman v. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm’n, 152 Wn.2d 584, 99 P.3d 386 (2004), Dep’t of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 600, 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). Accord AGO 1989 No. 7.).
Maybe it would be more obvious if the CFR purported to allow any and everyone to carry all the guns they wanted to onto postal property. I think it's clear that they could not do so under 18 USC 930. Why then do you not see the conflict when 39 CFR 232.1(l) is more restrictive of rights than the US Code? The USC provision allows possession of firearms for lawful purposes. The way I read English, the CFR that purports to forbid firearms for any purpose conflicts with the USC. If that were a WAC rule trying to trump an RCW it would not fly.
I guess maybe we just look at things a little differently out here. Also, I'm conditioned by the fact that we have our own body of state constitutional law whereby our court of final error can provide citizens with greater protections than those afforded by the US Constitution. As a prosecutor I wrestle will this all the time, especially in the area of search and seizure.
Any way, it's your board. I'm just trying to understand and contribute to the dialogue.
|
Current time is 11:04 pm | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
