Ban on guns in post offices is unconstitutional...


Employee safety is a top priority for the Postal Service, which is why the organization wants to ensure everyone is aware of its longstanding policy on firearms on postal property.

A recent Florida district court decision is being misreported or may be misinterpreted as holding that the Postal Service’s ban on carrying firearms — either openly or concealed, or storing them on USPS property — is unconstitutional.

In fact, the case dealt with a different federal statute and does not involve the Postal Service’s regulation. Therefore, it does not change the organization’s policy.

Employees are reminded that carrying or storing firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives — either openly or concealed — on USPS property is prohibited and can result in discipline up to and including removal from the Postal Service, as well as potential prosecution.

This prohibition includes storing firearms in vehicles that are parked on postal property.
 
That's a crazy statement? Go to a post office to pick up my mail?

I barely check my mailbox

I had a post office box in CT for thirty-some years. Got it when I was getting divorced and kept it as I moved around. Came in particularly useful this last 8 years or so as I summered up there and lived down here. Finally closed it this past summer when I sold my CT camper.
 
My PO has a big sign on the door letting the serfs know it extra special punishable to carry a firearm around the King's men.
It even bigger at the employee entrance, a silhouette of a model 36 with a big red slash through it. NO WEAPONS! And the statute is listed with punishment.
 

Employee safety is a top priority for the Postal Service, which is why the organization wants to ensure everyone is aware of its longstanding policy on firearms on postal property.

A recent Florida district court decision is being misreported or may be misinterpreted as holding that the Postal Service’s ban on carrying firearms — either openly or concealed, or storing them on USPS property — is unconstitutional.

In fact, the case dealt with a different federal statute and does not involve the Postal Service’s regulation. Therefore, it does not change the organization’s policy.

Employees are reminded that carrying or storing firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives — either openly or concealed — on USPS property is prohibited and can result in discipline up to and including removal from the Postal Service, as well as potential prosecution.

This prohibition includes storing firearms in vehicles that are parked on postal property.
FWIW, that reads more like a rule for employees rather than one for someone walking in from the street. If there isn't a law against it (and I'm taking no stance on that, one way or the other), then I would think that the PO saying "No Guns!" would only have effect in a state where there was a law compelling you to follow such signs.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, that reads more like a rule for employees rather than one for someone walking in from the street. If there isn't a law against it (and I'm taking no stance on that, one way or the other), then I would think that the PO saying "No Guns!" would only have effect in a state where there was a law compelling you to follow such signs.
That’s how I interpreted it.
 
Firearms Policy Center, joined by the SAF, has filed a similar suit in Northern District of Texas.

FPC V. GARLAND - FPC LAW CHALLENGE TO POST OFFICE GUN BAN

Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging federal gun laws prohibiting firearm possession, storage, and carry at post offices and related properties.

Plaintiffs: Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Gavin Pate, and George Mandry

Defendants: United States Attorney General Merrick Garland

Litigation Counsel: R. Brent Cooper, S. Hunter Walton, David H. Thompson, and Peter A. Petterson

Docket: N.D. TX case no. 4:24-cv-00565 | CourtListener Docket
 
Last edited:
I know this is page 3, but the problem iwth people going "postal" was POSTAL WORKERS! Seems we know who should be banned. And it ain't the general public. LOL
 
FWIW, that reads more like a rule for employees rather than one for someone walking in from the street. If there isn't a law against it (and I'm taking no stance on that, one way or the other), then I would think that the PO saying "No Guns!" would only have effect in a state where there was a law compelling you to follow such signs.

It seems like it's LEGAL to carry on postal property.... 930 (d)(a)3
Possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a federal facility for other than official purposes, causing such a weapon to be present, or attempting to do so are punishable by a fine, imprisonment for up to 1 year, or both. If the prohibited weapon is intended to be used to commit a crime, the penalty is an increased fine, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. See Title 18,
United States Code, Section 930.

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous
weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever
knowingly possesses or causes to be present
a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal
facility (other than a Federal court facility),
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or
both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or
other dangerous weapon be used in the commission
of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes
to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon
in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course
of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the
course of an attack on a Federal facility involving
the use of a firearm or other dangerous
weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an
act, shall be punished as provided in sections
1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties
by an officer, agent, or employee of the United
States, a State, or a political subdivision
thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in
or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation,
or prosecution of any violation of
law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous
weapon by a Federal official or a member
of the Armed Forces if such possession is
authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other
dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident
to hunting or other lawful purposes.

(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever
knowingly possesses or causes to be present
a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal
court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct
which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of
a court of the United States to punish for contempt
or to promulgate rules or orders regulating,
restricting, or prohibiting the possession
of weapons within any building housing such
court or any of its proceedings, or upon any
grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term ‘‘Federal facility’’ means a
building or part thereof owned or leased by the
Federal Government, where Federal employees
are regularly present for the purpose of performing
their official duties.
(2) The term ‘‘dangerous weapon’’ means a
weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance,
animate or inanimate, that is used for,
or is readily capable of, causing death or serious
bodily injury, except that such term does
not include a pocket knife with a blade of less
than 21⁄2 inches in length.
(3) The term ‘‘Federal court facility’’ means
the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness
rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference
rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices
of the court clerks, the United States attorney,
and the United States marshal, probation
and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of
any court of the United 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.
(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6215(a), Nov. 18,
1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title
XXII, § 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub.
L. 103–322, title VI, § 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108
Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 603(t), (u),
Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 107–56, title
VIII, § 811(b), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 381; Pub. L.
110–177, title II, § 203, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2537.)

No person on U.S. Postal Service® property may carry or store firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes. See Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1.
(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other
law
, rule or regulation, 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.


The CFR carves out for "any other law" and under USC 18 930 (d)(a)3 "hunting or other lawful purposes"

well.... CC for self protection is a lawful purpose. why is this even before the supremes?
 
Last edited:
The CFR carves out for "any other law" and under USC 18 930 (d)(a)3 "hunting or other lawful purposes"

well.... CC for self protection is a lawful purpose. why is this even before the supremes?
I wish I could remember the cite, but there was a federal court decision that "other lawful purpose" did not include lawful carry by ordinary citizens as such an interpretion would render the law meaningless, and that the law was intended only for situations like a hunter setting foot onto USPO owned land while hunting. It was, quite literally, a "results oriented" decision.
 
Postal police are the biggest cock suckers on the planet...i swear they take the guys who get rejected from the atf and msp and have them sire a line of dick heads that go work for them
Not really, there's definitely some that think they reign supreme. I know I had a few co workers that went into the PP, in fact I was supposed to go until I found out the weren't getting the correct pay and their desk job of sitting at a desk checking badges, no radio, no newspaper, nothing just sitting there, sucked. To top it off, they got screwed because if you committed to the Postal Police, you lost all your seniority in your previous job. The 3 I knew all wished they didn't take it. Of course that was back in the early 70's. The training was at OU in Oklahoma. it's all different now.
 
Not really, there's definitely some that think they reign supreme. I know I had a few co workers that went into the PP, in fact I was supposed to go until I found out the weren't getting the correct pay and their desk job of sitting at a desk checking badges, no radio, no newspaper, nothing just sitting there, sucked. To top it off, they got screwed because if you committed to the Postal Police, you lost all your seniority in your previous job. The 3 I knew all wished they didn't take it. Of course that was back in the early 70's. The training was at OU in Oklahoma. it's all different now.
I stand by my statement

I've never met one I didn't have the urge to violently assault
 
The first one counts in whatever federal district that court is in. Why FPC chose to file another in the Federal District Court for North Texas I don't know. Other than maybe it's much more gun friendly than any other Federal District Court.


Wait. Why is there another "challenge"? Does the one in the first post here not count or something? What did I miss?
 
Last edited:
FWIW, that reads more like a rule for employees rather than one for someone walking in from the street. If there isn't a law against it (and I'm taking no stance on that, one way or the other), then I would think that the PO saying "No Guns!" would only have effect in a state where there was a law compelling you to follow such signs.
There is.
 
39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) (“USPS Regulation)

"Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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."

This includes parking lots.

There is.

"
 
I stand by my statement

I've never met one I didn't have the urge to violently assault
Now which are you talking about? There are uniformed Postal Police like down at South Station. Then there are U.S. Postal Inspectors, who are akin to agents or criminal investigators. Two (2) very distinct and different animals. One can give you a parking ticket. The other guy investigates mail fraud, works undercover stuff, and spies on workers from secret mirrors. SO which group are you talking about?
 
Wait. Is the law (or regulation) gone or not? Totally lost here.
The law is not gone, since a trial court decision has no precedential value. The DOJ has appealed to the 11th circuit, and that appeal is proceeding at the normal plodding rate. In the meantime, Emmanuel Ayala is still facing resisting arrest charges from the incident.
 
The first one counts in whatever federal district that court is in.
The law is not gone, since a trial court decision has no precedential value.

OK. So this is NOT a done deal. The way this was written, I thought it was done and over. I was about to send it out to our club members as a "good news" announcement/article/item.

Now, it is no news and not worth sending at all. Don't want to give people a false impression. Glad I sat on this a while, and this was the reason. Hate these misleading headlines.

Are the bump stock thing and the pistol brace thing also in limbo still?
 
Last edited:
Cargill decided the bump stock issue, but NOT on 2A grounds. Congress could pass a law and send it to pResident Biden for signing. I don't think that will happen this year and if President Trump wins in November, I don't think it will happen at all. That said, MA could well stuff it into the current anti gun bill in the legislature as an amendment. Again, I suspect that they won't do anything until next year, but with this a**h***s you never know.

The pistol brace issue is far from over. A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the ATF rule is invalid. He used the same logic as the Supreme Court did in overturning the bump stock rule. That is, it is beyond the powers of the ATF to create a new law in the guise of a rule. No doubt the ATF has or will appeal to the Fifth Circuit, but they have a high hill to climb as this case is much like Cargill.


OK. So this is NOT a done deal. The way this was written, I thought it was done and over. I was about to send it out to our club members as a "good news" article/item. Now, it is no news and not worth sending at all. Don't want to give people a false impression.

Are the bump stock thing and the pistol brace thing also in limbo still?
 
Are the bump stock thing and the pistol brace thing also in limbo still?
The ATF rule against bump stocks was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court. They did not say such the ban was unconstitutional, but that the NFA as written doesn't prohibit them, no matter how much the DOJ and ATF tried to stretch it. The court did not rule whether they could be banned by existing state laws or by future laws at either the state or federal level.

The "pistol brace thing" is far from over, although one lower court has ordered the rule to be vacated. Again, this was not on constitutional grounds, but procedural grounds. The court found that the "final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule." So the ATF could either appeal or start the rule making process all over again. In the meantime, the ATF could still charge and attempt to punish sellers or owners of braced "pistols" with an NFA violation if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon in question was "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" and that adding a couple of Velcro straps doesn't change that intent.
 
I really wish people would stop saying this. Because it’s stupid and misses the point on so many levels.

I mean, sure, that’s great, if you are just carrying to carry. Isn’t particularly helpful in any situation where you’d actually need it.
Whoops….

1718837500820.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom