Open Carrying on Postal Property

[color of law]

Below is a free content document. The document, if used, should be verified by your own research to verify its soundness in presenting a legal theory supported by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should anyone decide to use it, I would suggest it also be CC: to your local Post Master.

Enjoy.

 

[KBCraig]

I hope that whomever wrote that never submits a brief to a federal court.

While I agree with the conclusion, the formatting is an abomination.

 

[2a4all]

The author states (emphasis added):
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

While true, one must define (and be aware of) lawful purpose. The poster (USPS) limits lawful purposes to official purposes:
"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.".

 

[color of law]

I hope that whomever wrote that never submits a brief to a federal court.

While I agree with the conclusion, the formatting is an abomination.

So, you don't know the difference between a brief and letter/notice?

 

[color of law]

The author states (emphasis added):
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

While true, one must define (and be aware of) lawful purpose. The poster (USPS) limits lawful purposes to official purposes:
"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.".

The supreme court defined "lawful purpose". The agency does not have the power to redefine the term. The postal service does have the right to regulate their employees by specifying which employees may carry for official purposes. I suggest you reread the letter/notice. A regulation has to be supported by a law or statutory law. The regulation is not supported by the law.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

When it comes to gun rights.

The rights part take a seconded seat at the table.

 

[color of law]

When it comes to gun rights.

The rights part take a seconded seat at the table.

I'm seeing a lot of grass roots gun rights groups pushing states to stand-up to the feds over gun rights.

 

[hammer6]

I think that sign only applies to USPS employees, not non-employees.

 

[2a4all]

The supreme court defined "lawful purpose". The agency does not have the power to redefine the term. The postal service does have the right to regulate their employees by specifying which employees may carry for official purposes. I suggest you reread the letter/notice. A regulation has to be supported by a law or statutory law. The regulation is not supported by the law.

The USPS didn't redefine the term, but it appears that they did identify what purposes are lawful. Such a description would, by definition, identify purposes which are not lawful, i.e. if'n' it ain't in the list, 'tain't allowed. It seems like the issue is the application of the definition(s) to everyone, not just to USPS employees.

Not sure I'd want to rely on this argument as a defense to a charge of carrying in/on a USPS facility.

 

[solus]

2a4all, et al., show the nice arresting officers the document and there is a 'wink & nod' agreement the officers don't put their handcuffs on TO TIGHT!



but i agree not sure i want to be the flag bearer to lead the way...

 

[color of law]

Where in the letter/notice does it say that the person that sent the letter/notice was going to be the pinkie? All the letter says is if no response was received in a reasonable amount of time (60 days) it would be presumed correct.

After that time the person that sent that letter/notice may choose to take whatever action that would be appropriate after the reasonable amount of time had passed.

If it were me and if I got NO response I would send a second letter/notice informing them that I was going to open carry in XYZ post office on such in such time and day. The second letter/notice would also be sent to the the local police chief and the station master of that particular post office. The date of the open carry would be 60 days out from the date of the second letter/notice.

 

[2a4all]

Where in the letter/notice does it say that the person that sent the letter/notice was going to be the pinkie? All the letter says is if no response was received in a reasonable amount of time (60 days) it would be presumed correct.

After that time the person that sent that letter/notice may choose to take whatever action that would be appropriate after the reasonable amount of time had passed.

If it were me and if I got NO response I would send a second letter/notice informing them that I was going to open carry in XYZ post office on such in such time and day. The second letter/notice would also be sent to the the local police chief and the station master of that particular post office. The date of the open carry would be 60 days out from the date of the second letter/notice.

Might want to also send the letter to the Postal Inspection Service, as they are responsible for enforcing USPS regulations. Not sure the local police chief even has jurisdiction.

 

[color of law]

Might want to also send the letter to the Postal Inspection Service, as they are responsible for enforcing USPS regulations. Not sure the local police chief even has jurisdiction.

Did you not look at the end of the letter?

 

[jammer]

I believe that postal carriers have the right to be armed if I'm not mistaken?

 

[solus]

I believe that postal carriers have the right to be armed if I'm not mistaken?

276.22 Possession of Firearms by Postal Service Employees

Except for Postal Service employees who are authorized by the chief postal inspector or by the inspector general, Postal Service employees are prohibited from possessing firearms in the following instances:

a. While on official duty, either on or off Postal Service property.

b. While on or within Postal Service property at any time.

The term “possessing” includes carrying or storing of firearms.

Policies, Procedures, and Forms Updates

about.usps.com

Note: authorized concerns designated postal police and inspectors ~ not postal carriers!

 

[color of law]

Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland moves to all clear after lockdown for reports of gunshots near gate | CNN

Texas' Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland went into lockdown Wednesday after reports of two gunshots near one of the gates to the massive military facility.

www.cnn.com

Seems like that 18 USC 930 keeps popping up.

 

[KBCraig]

Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland moves to all clear after lockdown for reports of gunshots near gate | CNN

Texas' Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland went into lockdown Wednesday after reports of two gunshots near one of the gates to the massive military facility.

www.cnn.com

View attachment 13855
Seems like that 18 USC 930 keeps popping up.

Yes, it's always been misquoted as applying "on a federal installation". It doesn't.

 

[color of law]

Yes, it's always been misquoted as applying "on a federal installation". It doesn't.

Please explain. And please point to the definition of "federal installation."

 

[KBCraig]

Please explain. And please point to the definition of "federal installation."

You cited 18 USC 930. There is no "federal installation" mentioned, only "federal facility". That was my point, and I'm sure that you already know the law.

18 USC 930 (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.

 

[color of law]

You cited 18 USC 930. There is no "federal installation" mentioned, only "federal facility". That was my point, and I'm sure that you already know the law.

18 USC 930 (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.

You didn't answer the question. Where in Title 50 is the term "federal installation" defined? I'll answer it for you. There is no definition for the made-up term "federal installation." It is a generic made up term. The sign sites the Statute, 18 USC 930. The installation is, as defined in 18 USC 930, a "federal facility."

But does federal installation mean the entire base? Who knows, it's not defined.