• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

USPS Carry (OC or CC)

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I disagree. The law is the law, regulations are not. I'm not saying you won't suffer consequences, and in fact made no conclusions whatsoever other than it is not a matter of law that firearms are prohibited in the parking lot of a Post Office.

That said, it would appear to me to be an overreach to punish an offender as if they had violated the law. We have a constitutionally-defined method for enacting laws in this country for a reason. Extra-legal regulations like this one subvert that process. Regulations should be in place to define procedures for and implement the law, not expand it.
Well, I'll tell you what, you go ahead and carry on a military base or at a post office and watch what happens. BTW, I guarantee you that violating a base regulation on firearms will break the LAW.

Folks, don't let the distinction between USC (United States Code) and CFR (Codified Federal Regulations) fool you. In many cases, Congress has given a federal agency authority to make rules and has made violating those rules a violation of the law.

Should the legislative branch be able to cede their authority to define specific actions to be crimes to the executive branch? IMO, no! Can they? Yep. Violating a regulation is often also violating the law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
 
Last edited:

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
I disagree. The law is the law, regulations are not. I'm not saying you won't suffer consequences, and in fact made no conclusions whatsoever other than it is not a matter of law that firearms are prohibited in the parking lot of a Post Office.

That said, it would appear to me to be an overreach to punish an offender as if they had violated the law. We have a constitutionally-defined method for enacting laws in this country for a reason. Extra-legal regulations like this one subvert that process. Regulations should be in place to define procedures for and implement the law, not expand it.
A distinction without a difference in the real world, I'm afraid.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,386
Location
in front of my computer, WI
notalawyer said:
39 CFR 232.1 prohibits firearms on Post Office Property.
Thank you for posting this! I was wanting to add it to my classes and hadn't looked it up yet.

JustaShooter said:
So, there is no law against having a firearm in your car in a Post Office parking lot then.
Yes, there's 39CFR232.1 Why do you think it's not a law?
What would it take to get you to believe it's a law?

I think having the section about animals in there should make it easier to make it clear that the PO is only allowed to control what comes in the building, not the parking lot.

And has anyone ever challenged the firearm prohibition based on the "except for official purposes" clause?
If I'm there to mail something or get a passport I'm there for official purposes.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
Interestingly enough I have just today come to need to know the legalities of carrying "around about" but not "inside" post offices.
I don't see a difference between outside the building (but still USPS property) and inside the building in the CFR.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
...And has anyone ever challenged the firearm prohibition based on the "except for official purposes" clause?
If I'm there to mail something or get a passport I'm there for official purposes.
No person while on postal property may carry firearms, ...either openly or concealed, ...except for official purposes.
I can see the argument that the firearm must be part of the official purpose. Else the only people who would not be exempt would be loiterers.

I like the way you think, but if that were the case, that whole paragraph would not have been written.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Thank you for posting this! I was wanting to add it to my classes and hadn't looked it up yet.


Yes, there's 39CFR232.1 Why do you think it's not a law?
What would it take to get you to believe it's a law?

I think having the section about animals in there should make it easier to make it clear that the PO is only allowed to control what comes in the building, not the parking lot.

And has anyone ever challenged the firearm prohibition based on the "except for official purposes" clause?
If I'm there to mail something or get a passport I'm there for official purposes.
What would it take to get you to believe it's a law?
Technically, he's correct. Laws can only be created by the legislature. These are regulations. But in the real world the operate the same.

I think having the section about animals in there should make it easier to make it clear that the PO is only allowed to control what comes in the building, not the parking lot.
Nope, go back and read section (a) and pay close attention to (a)(ii), it talks about sidewalks and such.

And has anyone ever challenged the firearm prohibition based on the "except for official purposes" clause?
If I'm there to mail something or get a passport I'm there for official purposes.
The carrying of the firearm itself has to be for official purposes, not the being in the Post Office.
 

JustaShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
723
Location
NE Ohio
Yes, there's 39CFR232.1 Why do you think it's not a law?
What would it take to get you to believe it's a law?
Why do I think it is not a law? Because it is a Federal Regulation, not a part of the US Code. I'm not saying it has no authority (whether legal or not, the government has given them the authority to produce and enforce these regulations), or that there wouldn't be consequences for violating it. (As one other poster put it, it is essentially a distinction without a difference.) However, I contend there is a difference.

So, do words matter? Do legal terms matter - or do they not? Is there an actual Federal Law that prohibits possession of a firearm in the parking lot of a Post Office?
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,338
Location
Nevada
...Is there an actual Federal Law that prohibits possession of a firearm in the parking lot of a Post Office?
That's a good question.

Is there a Federal Law that gives authority to the CFRs and their penalties?
 
Last edited:

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
That's a good question.

Is there a Federal Law that gives authority to the CFRs and their penalties?
For Post Offices? Here's one: 39 USC 401
Subject to the provisions of section 404a, the Postal Service shall have the following general powers:
. . .
(2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this title, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions under this title and such other functions as may be assigned to the Postal Service under any provisions of law outside of this title;
 
Top