Concealed Carry in Post Offices

[mindfunk]

I had to call a gun maker about an issue with a gun I was having. The person on the other end of the phone suggested that it is easier to use FedEx or UPS to ship the gun. I am pretty sure he got at least some of his facts wrong on this, but he suggested that walking into a Post Office and attempting to ship a gun to them (not being an FFL) would result in my prompt arrest.

This lead me to wonder weather concealed carry is allowed at Post Offices. On one hand, there is nothing in Texas law prohibiting it that I can find. Also, they certainly don't have the 30.06 sign out front.

On the other hand, national parks or other federal land located in Texas do not have the 30.06 sign, yet it is clearly illegal to carry at those places. The Federal government (rightly or wrongly) believes it does not have to post the sign. It totally would not surprise me if there is a federal law against this.

So, the question is, is concealed carry at post offices legal under federal law.

The secondary question is what is the law about a non-ffl shipping firearms? Iirc, it is legal to ship a firearm to/from the manufacturer for repair if you are not an FFL.

namaste,
Mark

 

[JKTex]

Oh boy, here we go again.

First, you need to ship a hand gun via a common carrier, not the USPS. An FFL can. UPS and Fedex have their guidelines on-line.

As for carrying, there's a thread that hashes it out, actually every gun forum does, and it's never clear. Local laws have nothing to do with the USPS property (not just the building) though. If you ask you're local Postmaster, they may say they don't care, they might care, they might say they have no idea. If it's got a metal detector, don't bother.

Read the other thread and see if you can figure it out. It's got about everything anyone can say including federal and USPS laws quoted.

 

[Texan2]

My post office has the warning on the door..."NO CARRY!" (paraphrased...)

 

[mindfunk]

My post office has a warning basically saying that robbing the place was against the law. Wouldn't have guessed that... *chortle*

The link to the other thread is:
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/gun-legislation/1789-legal-concealed-carry-us-post-office.html

 

[hoytinak]

I'm no lawyer but the way I read the law it states that you can't carry in a post office for unlawful reasons. To me going in and getting my mail from the mailbox is a lawful reason so I keep my CCW on me. I've never seen any sign in any of the post offices around here that say "no firearms" except on the list of stuff you can't mail out.

But has stated before this has been discussed over and over and it still seems that no one is sure.

 

[txinvestigator]

I'm no lawyer but the way I read the law it states that you can't carry in a post office for unlawful reasons. To me going in and getting my mail from the mailbox is a lawful reason so I keep my CCW on me. I've never seen any sign in any of the post offices around here that say "no firearms" except on the list of stuff you can't mail out.

But has stated before this has been discussed over and over and it still seems that no one is sure.

It is a violation of the CFRs to carry at a post office. I am sure.

 

[djspump2003]

Where are all of these people getting their CHLs from??? I keep reading all of these questions across the forum from CHL holders that do not know the most basic rules that I was taught in my CHL class. Is Ross Bransford (chl-texas.com) here in Austin about the only guy that teaches straight from the rule book? You as a non-LEO or reserve status LEO can NEVER take your firearm into a federal building. It is a class III felony whether you know that or not - ignorance is not the fault of the law. (I know that last part b/c a Giddings judge kindly told me at my first and only MIP hearing to which he enforced the highest fine at the time when I was 17)That said, this isn't the only place and time you should be reviewing the rules for concealed carry. A lack of knowledge in this area is what gives the liberals a lot of their ammo to use against us.

 

[txinvestigator]

Where are all of these people getting their CHLs from??? I keep reading all of these questions across the forum from CHL holders that do not know the most basic rules that I was taught in my CHL class. Is Ross Bransford (chl-texas.com) here in Austin about the only guy that teaches straight from the rule book? You as a non-LEO or reserve status LEO can NEVER take your firearm into a federal building.

There is nothing in Texas CHL laws that address federal buildings, and as such no federal buildings are in the curriculum. It is NOT part of the CHL instructor's responsibility to discuss federal law.

To what rule book are you referring?

 

[JKTex]

And let me throw this beer bottle. A USPS is not a federal building.

 

[djspump2003]

There is nothing in Texas CHL laws that address federal buildings, and as such no federal buildings are in the curriculum. It is NOT part of the CHL instructor's responsibility to discuss federal law.

To what rule book are you referring?

The rule book I am referring to is the LS-16 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES that you can download from the DPS site. That is what CHL instructors should be teaching to and I will get back to ya'll on the exact listing referring to the counter area of the post office being restricted - what statute or rule pertains to that area.

 

[Texan2]

I sat in on a class yesterday that my wife was taking...Never any mention of a post office in the state laws that the instructor covered....

 

[txinvestigator]

The rule book I am referring to is the LS-16 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES that you can download from the DPS site. That is what CHL instructors should be teaching to and I will get back to ya'll on the exact listing referring to the counter area of the post office being restricted - what statute or rule pertains to that area.

Are you a CHL instructor; have you been to an instructor class?

I am and have. The LS16 is not "the rule book". It is a compilation of statutes from the various codes that affect a CHL holder. It is a convenient guide to use, but it is not required that an instructor use it. The curriculum is outlined in the laws, and does not cover ANY federal issues.

I am glad you liked your instuctor and you believe you were well taught. However, being taught well does not qualify you to speak to "what CHL instructors should be teaching to".

The USC makes post offices not be "federal facilities". See 39 USC 410.

The 39 CFR 232.1 does not refer to the counter area It refers to "postal property."

 

[Lumberjack98]

 

[JKTex]

The rule book I am referring to is the LS-16 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS AND SELECTED STATUTES that you can download from the DPS site. That is what CHL instructors should be teaching to and I will get back to ya'll on the exact listing referring to the counter area of the post office being restricted - what statute or rule pertains to that area.

Ok. 46.03 is a good place to start, but it doesn't support your assertion. Nothing in LS-16 does.

But, if you're lumping federal buildings in with USPS, that's a problem to begin with. And a State CHL hand book or any state law will not govern whether it's not legal to carry concealed in a USPS either. The USPS does a good enough job of screwing things up bad enough to make it utterly confusing.

 

[djspump2003]

Are you a CHL instructor; have you been to an instructor class?

I am and have. The LS16 is not "the rule book". It is a compilation of statutes from the various codes that affect a CHL holder. It is a convenient guide to use, but it is not required that an instructor use it. The curriculum is outlined in the laws, and does not cover ANY federal issues.

I am glad you liked your instuctor and you believe you were well taught. However, being taught well does not qualify you to speak to "what CHL instructors should be teaching to".

The USC makes post offices not be "federal facilities". See 39 USC 410.

The 39 CFR 232.1 does not refer to the counter area It refers to "postal property."

I am not a CHL instructor, so I don't technically have the credibility to state what they should be teaching.

That said, being fairly well versed in CHL law your assertion that CHL instructors should not teach to any federal law would seem a bit incorrect. Why would you mention ANY Class III felony in the course if they weren't supposed to teach some federal law? Am I so far off base that me thinking if you commit a felony you are not breaking federal law?

Also, why does my post office (and all of them I've been to in South Austin) post
18 USC Sec. 930
01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS


this (with the rest of the sign) at the entrace? Are all of those post offices in error in thinking that they are federal buildings?



I understand that there is some question about this part:
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


Well, the "lawful purposes" part.


Hey, I apologize for stepping on any toes and am willing to admit when I am wrong. I do know that there are CHL instructors that do not teach everything they should. But if you tell your students not to go into a federal courthouse or the IRS building armed up, then you have just taught them federal law. Maybe that is why there are so many confused CHL holders on this forum asking about 30.06 signs and whether or not they can still go into this or that building or amusement park if they don't post a sign. This has been a lesson to me and I will not criticize another CHL holder for asking a question b/c their CHL instructor sucked.

 

[JKTex]

Am I so far off base that me thinking if you commit a felony you are not breaking federal law?

If you think only felony's are committed by violating are federal laws, then I'd say you're pretty safe with the term "far off base".

Also, why does my post office (and all of them I've been to in South Austin) post
18 USC Sec. 930
01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS

this (with the rest of the sign) at the entrace? Are all of those post offices in error in thinking that they are federal buildings?

The USPS is a quasi-governmental agency. It's an fully independent establishment of the Federal Government (executive branch).

So, it's special.

I agree there are some scary questions that come up by CHL holders, but realistically, in the few hours you're in class going over what's required, most people can't 100% absorb everything. And I'm sure not ever class goes over everything, and shouldn't have to. The hand book is a good guide and everyone has one, or can download it. We can't depend on 1 person teaching a class to pack our heads with every law and force us to retain it. We have to ensure we know the law; after all, we're responsible for following it.

Also, the laws themselves sure could use some house cleaning to make them easier to understand without having to know that one section is altered by another and to understand the association. Some people just don't want to do it for themselves so they jump on the Internet and run with whatever they read.



But back to your assertions. Did you not find the "Federal" references or the "counter area" etc. You seemed very sure that you were told or read it and if you did, I'm curious where it was. The USPS carry question is always a lively discussion. Search and see how many times it's come up on forums. I think the consensus leans towards the interpretation that while you can carry in Federal Buildings, USPS is under different authority and a civilian legally carrying concealed is prohibited from carrying on USPS property; not just in the building.

 

[djspump2003]

If you think only felony's are committed by violating are federal laws, then I'd say you're pretty safe with the term "far off base".

Also, the laws themselves sure could use some house cleaning to make them easier to understand without having to know that one section is altered by another and to understand the association. Some people just don't want to do it for themselves so they jump on the Internet and run with whatever they read.

But back to your assertions. Did you not find the "Federal" references or the "counter area" etc. You seemed very sure that you were told or read it and if you did, I'm curious where it was. The USPS carry question is always a lively discussion. Search and see how many times it's come up on forums. I think the consensus leans towards the interpretation that while you can carry in Federal Buildings, USPS is under different authority and a civilian legally carrying concealed is prohibited from carrying on USPS property; not just in the building.

I will go ahead and concede the part of the discussion as related to CHL instructors and their responsibility. I will certainly lighten up on the instructors after remembering one of the guys in my class that admitted to having had his CHL for 4 years and hadn't been to the range once to practice. I go to the range twice a week to practice, but I'm an addict.

I will also admit that I cannot find any laws to back the stuff I was so sure of related to the area past the metal detectors in the post office. I know for sure that is what I was told when I sat through the CHL class. I will write Ross an email and see if he will shed some light on this subject and why he said those things and what the law is that backs the statements up. I've talked to the peace officers on the UT campus regarding some of the laws about educational facilities, but never broached the subject of a post office. The stuff in class is etched in my mind, but the laws are worded for the lawyers and not for us laymen. I have to admit that I am still a little confused about the difference between felony and federal law.

 

[txinvestigator]

I am not a CHL instructor, so I don't technically have the credibility to state what they should be teaching.

That said, being fairly well versed in CHL law your assertion that CHL instructors should not teach to any federal law would seem a bit incorrect. Why would you mention ANY Class III felony in the course if they weren't supposed to teach some federal law? Am I so far off base that me thinking if you commit a felony you are not breaking federal law?

State and federal laws BOTH have "felonies". Texas does not have class III felonies, and neither does federal law.

Texas catagorizes felonies as State Jail Felonies, Third Degree Felonies, Second Degree Felonies, First Degree Felonies, and Capital Felonies.

The Federal Govt calls them Class A, B, C, D and E felonies. I have no idea where you heard Class III felonies, but it would not have been referenced in a Texas CHL class.

If you meant third degree felonies, then you are referring to Texas law. There is no prohibition in Texas law from carry in a federal building. In fact, Texas would seem to make it lawful to carry on the premises of a government entity unless specifically proscribed in penal code 46.03 or 46.035.

So the only prohibition to carry at a federal building is under federal law.

There is NO FEDERAL LAW THAT IS PART OF THE CHL COURSE. There is nothing prohibiting an instructor from covering federal laws.

Hey, I apologize for stepping on any toes and am willing to admit when I am wrong. I do know that there are CHL instructors that do not teach everything they should. But if you tell your students not to go into a federal courthouse or the IRS building armed up, then you have just taught them federal law. Maybe that is why there are so many confused CHL holders on this forum asking about 30.06 signs and whether or not they can still go into this or that building or amusement park if they don't post a sign.

Umm, what? If I tell my students not to go to a federal courthouse THAT is the reason others are confused as to buildings and amusement parks?

I really don't follow you.

This has been a lesson to me and I will not criticize another CHL holder for asking a question b/c their CHL instructor sucked.

So your instructor was sooooo good that you think class 3 felonies are federal crimes, you think that post office carry is covered in the Texas LS 16 that DPS puts out and is part of the Texas CHL course, you think that the post office prohibition has something to do with carry at the counters at the post offices, and it seems you think that felony=federal........that about right?

THEN you denigrate CHL instructors who don't teach your mis-beliefs?

All I can say is, wow.

 

[40Arpent]

I have to admit that I am still a little confused about the difference between felony and federal law.

All states and the federal government have their own criminal code (set of laws), and that code determines which crimes are classifed as felonies and which are misdemeanors. Not all federal crimes are classified as felonies.

 

[djspump2003]

So your instructor was sooooo good that you think class 3 felonies are federal crimes, you think that post office carry is covered in the Texas LS 16 that DPS puts out and is part of the Texas CHL course, you think that the post office prohibition has something to do with carry at the counters at the post offices, and it seems you think that felony=federal........that about right?

THEN you denigrate CHL instructors who don't teach your mis-beliefs?

All I can say is, wow.

I certainly wouldn't attribute my misunderstandings of the class 3 felony versus third degree felony to my CHL instructor. That was due to me recharacterizing third degree felony into something I thought was synonymous with the meaning. And no, I THOUGHT post office carry was covered in the LS-16, but it turns out I was somehow lumping federal into the educational institution part of 46.03. Yeah, it is not there.

To give you an idea of the preponderance of the misconception of felony=federal, I polled my lab of graduate and PhD level engineers and all concurred that if you committed a felony, you had broken a federal crime. Granted, none of us are LEOs, and the only experience I had was in security on my aircraft carrier for a year. That was UCMJ, so we didn't care about the rest of the laws except when we had a custody turnover from the Everett PD and that was always involving drugs or alcohol.

Would it not now seem obvious that touching on some of the federal aspects of carrying concealed are very pertinent in the CHL class? My instructor covered some of these topics and I either didn't understand or have blurred the technically specific details that we are now debating. It would appear that the postal carry comes up rather frequently and has several times on this forum, which I found when I started searching for facts. I had it stuck in my head that you don't carry in a federal building whether posted or not and that would seem to be a pretty safe bet in obeying the law. From the post on this forum in September of this year that seemed to settle most of the debate, 39CFR232.1 is where post office carry is most nearly define. It would seem to be a fitful criticism of CHL instructors that fail to speak about this most - seemingly - confusing of topics. Mine settled it by telling us not to carry past the metal detectors into the counter area, that seems pretty fair to me.