Page 1 of 1

Post Office verboten?

PostPosted:Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:59 am
by myopicvisionary
I went to the post office to get stamps and read for the first time, the poster "Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal Property". On the right hand side is "Weapons and Explosives: 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." I get the feeling that they don't perceive personal self defense as an official purpose. Any thoughts?

Re: Post Office verboten?

PostPosted:Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:43 pm
by dave_in_delaware
myopicvisionary wrote:... I get the feeling that they don't perceive personal self defense as an official purpose. Any thoughts?
My PO has the same sign, and I take it quite literally to mean "NO GUNS. PERIOD!" since I'm not there in any official purpose (i.e. Federal agent, LEO, etc). Since the PO is official government (Federal) property, carrying a gun is a huge no-no. I always leave my gun in the car when going into the PO.

Re: Post Office verboten?

PostPosted:Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:55 am
by Wynder
A short while ago, 39 CFR 232.1(l) prohibited firearms unless you were there for an 'official purpose'. However, 18 USC 930 basically said that the carrying of firearms into a Federal facility where state law did not prohibit it was fine as long as the behavior was incident to a lawful purpose (e.g. self defense), making it lawful to carry into a post office.

Recently, the introductory clause to 39 CFR 232.1 has changed, so this is no longer the case -- still looking for this cite.

So, here was the OLD laws:

232.1(l) Weapons and explosives. 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.

18 USC 930(p) (2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. 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.

In the long run, it's best to err on the side of caution at this point and not carry in a post office.

Edit: Found this on the web:
The Post Office since 1972 has been privatized. They are not even a "quasi" federal agency anymore. They used to be called the Bureau of the Post Office or something like that when they were federalized.

So exactly how does 18 USC 930 apply to them if they are not federalized?

Finally, I found this on the net recently:

"39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:

ยง 410. Application of other laws

Release date: 2003-06-24

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service."

So 930 does not apply and 239 is nothing more than a rule from a privatized entity.
So, it's a private entity rule, perhaps?

The plot thickens. :)

Re: Post Office verboten?

PostPosted:Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:43 pm
by dave_in_delaware
Hmmm... now THIS is interesting... After Wynder's post, I decided to do some research on "my" post office (3911 Concord Pike in Wilmington, next to the Talleyville Fire Company and Season's Pizza). Here's what I found out:

The land it's on was once privately owned, and apparently passed from one family member to another (same surname) in 1993. Then a year later in 1994 it was sold to... guess who? The fire company next door! And it would seem that the Fire Company wanted to make some money on the land, so in 1996 the commercial building you see now was built... as a rental unit! Yes, that's right. The "United States Post Office" rents that building/space from the fire company (and it's tax exempt, since the Fire Company is "volunteer")!! :shock: And here I thought the PO was owned by the government! Hah!!

Now, I wonder if the government actually owns ANY of the PO's??

So, since it's a rental property (on private property), I guess it's definitely considered private property. But the sign that is posted makes it sound like Federal property, when it isn't.

Hmmm... a clever scheme by the USPS.

Re: Post Office verboten?

PostPosted:Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:57 pm
by Wynder
dave_in_delaware wrote:So, since it's a rental property (on private property), I guess it's definitely considered private property. But the sign that is posted makes it sound like Federal property, when it isn't.
Well, technically, speaking... for the purposes of searches, when you rent an apartment, is that now your property or the landlord's?

While the landlord holds title over the real estate, for the purposes of search/seizure, you hold ownership over that apartment to the point where you can throw the landlord out or have him arrested for trespassing.

So, while the USPS may not OWN the real estate, their presence there may create that authority. No cites for any of this, just the first few thoughts that came to mind...