|
|
It is currently Sun Jun 30, 2024 9:30 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
New Sign at the Post Office
Author |
Message |
DeanC
|
Post subject: New Sign at the Post Office Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:38 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=353_1306415936.gif) |
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
These are hard to read because I had to get real close with my phone. Here's the text:
Possession of Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons on Postal Service Property is Prohibited by Law
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. Title 18, United States Code, Section 930
No person on U.S. Postal property may carry or store firearms, explosives, or other dangerous or deadly weapons, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes. Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1
Report all firearms violations immediately to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
![Image](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/deanage/PO3.jpg)
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
ttousi
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:05 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am Posts: 3311 Location: St. Paul, MN.
|
Still has the "official purposes" tagline
Define official...........?
I know it has probably been discussed and answered........but refresh my memory
Is the post office a federal entity or a private entity?....seems it is whatever they want it to be depending on the situation.
_________________ http://is.gd/37LKr
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
cobb
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:10 am |
|
1911 tainted |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=22_1307133287.gif) |
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
Here is a cut and past of 930 -
Quote: Sec. 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 or attempts to kill 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, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, and 1113.
(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 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 2 1/2 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.
The bold print is interesting.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:11 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=353_1306415936.gif) |
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
I posted it because it's new wording. I haven't seen them use the phrase"official business" before today.
Title 18 grants an exemption for "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes".
Carrying under a state issued permit to carry could reasonbly be considered "lawful purposes", but may not be "official purposes".
Title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 232.1 uses the "official purposes" phrase.
To me "official purposes" in the context of a Federal facility refers to the actions and business of the Federal government or its agents.
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
Last edited by DeanC on Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
grayskys
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:15 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:53 pm Posts: 1725
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:02 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=353_1306415936.gif) |
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
Has anybody written to the Minneapolis Postmaster and asked him if carrying a pistol under a Minnesota Permit to Carry a Pistol is considered both "lawful purposes" and "official purposes"?
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
grayskys
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:10 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:53 pm Posts: 1725
|
I don't know if that is a good idea, his opinion may be like the DNRs initial responce to carrying in state parks
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:24 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=40.gif) |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
This link does explain how 232.1 does(/should) not apply to permit holders.
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:43 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=353_1306415936.gif) |
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
Pakrat wrote: This link does explain how 232.1 does(/should) not apply to permit holders.
Yes, in one guy's opinion. What about in the opinion of the people who work at the Post Office and would make the decision whether to call the cops or not when you bend over to pick up your dropped mail and they see your gun?
Are you there with your gun for "official purposes"?
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:55 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
The Sign is not the law. You have to be prosecuted under Title 18 which says the prohibition does not apply to lawful carry for lawful purposes. What the sign says is irrelevant. You don't have to be there for official business. You'll win in court but things could get tacky in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
phorvick
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:23 pm |
|
Forum Moderator |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=51.jpg) |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm Posts: 1571 Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
|
Dick Unger wrote: The Sign is not the law. You have to be prosecuted under Title 18 which says the prohibition does not apply to lawful carry for lawful purposes. What the sign says is irrelevant. You don't have to be there for official business. You'll win in court but things could get tacky in the meantime. Although I agree with the legal analysis that says that carrying in a post office is not denied to Permit holders pursuant to the USC section, I don't agree that you will necessarily win in court. It is not a test case that I suggest be undertaken, as I would be shocked if your attorney bill was less than $50,000 by the time all the trial and appeals are completed.
In my classes I go over the same general analysis but strongly recommend that others be the test case. Further, many States have a restriction against carrying into a public building or public gathering, and even under the analysis written by Robert Firriolo it would then not be lawful.
Minnesota is somewhat unique in allowing carrying in our governmental arenas, I don't have the number in front of me, but I suspect that is the minority view among the 48 States that have some permit process.
So, although it is arguably legal, perhaps, in Minnesota, I would not want to be the test case.
Now, if "you" (a generic "you" here...not directed at anyone posting in this thread) want to be the test case, I would be eager to follow the litigation. ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
_________________ Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
grayskys
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:25 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:53 pm Posts: 1725
|
DeanC wrote: Pakrat wrote: This link does explain how 232.1 does(/should) not apply to permit holders. Yes, in one guy's opinion. What about in the opinion of the people who work at the Post Office and would make the decision whether to call the cops or not when you bend over to pick up your dropped mail and they see your gun? Are you there with your gun for "official purposes"?
I think the signs are wrong, and put up by anti-carry people to intimidate people with carry permits. I think we can carry under "(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." but nobody want to be a test case. please note IANAL
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
cobb
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:26 pm |
|
1911 tainted |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=22_1307133287.gif) |
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:47 pm Posts: 3045
|
I always thought it interesting that Utah has it written into their conceal carry law that under the conditions of your Utah permit, you can not carry in a Post Office.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
grayskys
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:32 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:53 pm Posts: 1725
|
I guess I doen't care that much about the usps, they come to the door (bringing bad news). I pay most of my bills online, those I can't my wife gets stamps and mails them at work. All my packages are fed-ex-ed or ups-ed.
I have been in a post office twice in six years, and concealed means concealed. Not that I am admiting anything.
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:24 pm |
|
Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=40.gif) |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am Posts: 2422 Location: Hopkins, MN
|
grayskys wrote: ...and concealed means concealed. Not that I am admiting anything.
That's the beauty of that statement, you aren't admitting anything and you are not telling someone to break the law. It's just informational... ![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
_________________ Minnesota Permit to Carry Instructor; Utah Certified CFP Instructor
|
|
|
|
![](images/spacer.gif) |
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
![](http://robdoar.com/bbsandbox/styles/Infinity/theme/images/permit.png)
|