An interesting ruling and a good lesson for us all.

[JohnKSa]

It's possible that the restriction on carrying in post offices may come to an end.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban...es-2024-01-13/

"A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights."

Also, there was a discussion on TFL about constitutionality awhile back and what the proper response was to being arrested in a situation like that. Here's another excerpt from the article.

"She declined to dismiss a separate charge for forcibly resisting arrest. "

It looks like the guy may win his case regarding the constitutional issue, but since he chose to resist arrest, he's still going to be charged for that. There's a clear lesson there.

[Recycled bullet]

Why (or what) was the original reason to prohibit the carry of Firearms into post offices originally?

Was it similar or part of the California gun control laws around that time that were designed to neuter and make the Black Panthers or other political groups carrying guns unlawful, without mentioning them in a way that was plausibly deniable?

[Aguila Blanca]

Several decades ago there was a fatal shooting (employee on employee) in a USPS facility. I don't remember if the prohibition on firearms on USPS properties was a result of that or not, but it seems logical that there may be a link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond...ffice_shooting

[JohnKSa]

The prohibition was enacted in 1964. My guess is that it related to the push for gun control that came in the 1960s after Kennedy's assassination.

[44 AMP]

I would have thought the no guns in the Post office came from much longer ago, like back in the days when the Post Office and mail shipments actually had real money, or other valuables common in them.

However, thinking about it, I can see where it wasn't the main concern that people HAD guns on them, but what they did with them, and back in those
"ancient" times, there were actually armed guards to deal with bad behavior.

I understand at one time, the US Post Office bought a bunch of tommy guns, for just such occasions...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The prohibition was enacted in 1964. My guess is that it related to the push for gun control that came in the 1960s after Kennedy's assassination.

Makes sense.

[JohnKSa]

Well, I'm going to have to backtrack a little. Apparently 1964 was when federal buildings were made off limits for guns--the post office restriction didn't come until later in 1972.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...1972-11-16.pdf

[MarkCO]

Good citation @JohnKSa.

When I had my FFL, I was shipping guns via the Post Office. One can still ship long guns via the USPS without an FFL.

I alway call ahead.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Well, I'm going to have to backtrack a little. Apparently 1964 was when federal buildings were made off limits for guns--the post office restriction didn't come until later in 1972.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...1972-11-16.pdf

And this points out the source of some confusion. Most people think of firearms "in" federal buildings as being regulated by 18 U.S.C. 930 -- and they would (in general) be correct.

But the Postal Service and the Veterans Administration have their own regulations, which are not in the U.S.C. but in the C.F.R. The Postal regulation is in CFR Title 39, Part 232. The one for the VA is found in 38 CFR 1.218. The "gotcha" is that, while 18 USC 930 prohibits firearms "in" federal facilities and defines a federal facility as a building where federal employees are regularly present for work, 30 CFR 232 and 38 CFR 1.218 both apply to the entire property, not just inside the building(s).

[44 AMP]

I can't quote the Fed law, but the prohibition also applies to private buildings AND their parking lots, that are leased by the Fed Govt.

Some years back there was a "road rage" incident that ended up in the parking lot of a classroom building leased by the DOE for training classes. Don't know if there were any actual DOE people who worked in the building, the trainers were all subcontractor employees.

One of the guys apparently got into a mess with someone on their way to class, and the angry guy followed him into the parking lot, and had a gun in his car. Security got the guy before anyone was injured and one of the charges he wound up facing was having the gun on "Fed property" illegally.

SO, if you need to go to ANY govt facility, best practice is to go unarmed, as leaving your gun in your car in the parking lot could put you in violation of the law.

Regarding the incident in the OP, you may have a Constitutional right to be armed, but you don't have a Constitutional (or any other) right to resist the police. No matter how convinced you are that you are right and they are wrong, the proper course of action is to peaceably comply with the police and seek redress of wrongs in court.

[Aguila Blanca]

The general law is 18 US Code Section 930.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

(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—
...
(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.
...
(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 2½ 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.

I'm too old and too poor to voluntarily become a test case, but the language is clear: the law prohibits possession "in" federal facilities, and federal facilities are defined as buildings -- not just any building, but buildings where federal employees "are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

That's not to say that people haven't been or won't be arrested, but the language is there. Words have meaning.

This is why it's important to know that the USPS and the VA have their own regulations, separate from 18 USC 930. Those regulations DO include the grounds.

[Cirdan]

We lease a portion of our building to GSA, and there's nothing in the lease about banning guns. As it happens, we prohibit employees from having guns on premises, but there's nothing to stop private citizens from carrying.

[Aguila Blanca]

My understanding (with the disclaimer that I am not an attorney) is that in a situation where the U.S. gummint leases part of a building or property, 18 USC 930 applies only to the portion that the gummint leases and controls.

I know of three post offices that are located in shopping centers. Two are storefronts in long buildings with other tenants on either side, so the parking lots are clearly not exclusive to the USPS. I'm pretty certain I would be okay leaving a firearm secured in my vehicle while doing business at either of those post offices.

My local post office is the third. I'm pretty sure it's leased space because it is in a shopping center and, prior to becoming a post office, it was a Boston Market chicken dinner restaurant. BUT ... it's a free-standing building at the south end of the property, and the curb layout defines parking in front of that building separately from the rest of the lot. Since I don't know if the USPS lease gives them control over "their" portion of the parking lot, I park in the larger lot in front of the main building and walk a few extra steps to the post office.

[44 AMP]

In the example I gave, the parking lot of the facility was covered as "Fed property". Had the bad actor parked on the street, or in the lot across the street, no gun charges would have been applied. But he didn't do that, he drove into the facility parking lot with a gun in his car.

He left the gun in his car and tried to follow the other guy into the building, but since it was a badged facility, he couldn't get in and security was called. After he was taken into custody, the gun was found in his car, and so gun charges were added.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

In the example I gave, the parking lot of the facility was covered as "Fed property". Had the bad actor parked on the street, or in the lot across the street, no gun charges would have been applied. But he didn't do that, he drove into the facility parking lot with a gun in his car.

He left the gun in his car and tried to follow the other guy into the building, but since it was a badged facility, he couldn't get in and security was called. After he was taken into custody, the gun was found in his car, and so gun charges were added.

Do you know what law he was charged under? If he was charged under 18 USC 930, his attorney should have been able to get the charges dismissed.

On the other hand, the USPS and the VA each have their own regulations. Perhaps the DOE does, as well. Or perhaps the facility was considered a school and he was charged under the Gun Free School Zone Act. You did write that it was a "classroom" building, but you didn't mention what age group it covered. I'm guessing it was a "school."

[44 AMP]

I have no idea what law the guy was charged under, heck, it could have been the atomic energy act for all I know.

The building was a class room building, leased by DOE and used for training workers at the Hanford Atomic Reservation. "Students' were adults, from the various crafts and trades that worked on the site. Operators, Rad Techs, Fitters, Millwrights, Electricians, etc.

I was at the building that day, but did not witness any part of what happened, personally. Technically, the guy tried to break into a Federal facility, part of the nuclear weapons production complex, and so I think Fed law and rules governing atomic weapons security were applied (which include the use of deadly force if deemed appropriate).

I never heard if he was charged with assault (or attempted assault) over the road rage incident, but we were told he was being charged with trying to break in and having a gun. This was not a matter of simple trespass, or not knowing the parking lot was also part of the Federal facility, this was a bad actor trying to catch someone he was mad at, and trying to get into a Fed facility that required a security clearance (badge) to enter, to catch the guy he was after. (who was a badged employee). And, I expect that since he had a gun in his car, he might have been considered to have been armed. The Fed security forces guarding atomic energy / weapons facilities take these things rather seriously, and have more legal leeway than regular law enforcement officers.

[Aguila Blanca]

Ah -- So "DOE" was Department of Energy. Because you had mentioned classroom, I assumed it was Department of Education and that it might have been a high school building.

[44 AMP]

Sorry, yes, Department of Energy.

30+ years of experience working in their facilities left me forgetting there could be another agency using DOE.

[radom]

its govt bs there. I am a retired fed officer and had the forest service issue me guns 9-11 they went oh my gods you may blow up a lodegepole weed tree and took my guns and the gun safe too. After that was take my own personal truck at work as then they cant ban a gun in it and then they wondered why I retired..

[Pathfinder45]

So then, it sounds like parking briefly at the USFS district ranger station to pick up a woodcutting permit is also in violation if you happen to have your deer rifle in the truck, even during hunting season and being in possession of a valid license and tag.... Yes? No?

[MZ5]

An important note about this case:

My understanding is that it is NOT precedent-setting (meaning it doesn't 'control' anyone or anything else but the person or people directly involved), because it's a trial court case. If it is appealed to the circuit court, THAT court's decision would be precedent-setting.

[JohnKSa]

That is my understanding as well. Still, a ruling by a federal judge that is allowed to stand is likely to have at least some effect on future similar cases, even if it isn't really binding in the way a precedent would be.

[Aguila Blanca]

While not binding precedent, unless overturned by appeal could still be cited as persuasive authority.

Personally, I'd prefer not to be a test case. I'll continue to leave my guns off USPS property.

[Pathfinder45]

Well I go deer hunting on the National Forests as well as wood cutting, concurrently. Now I am alarmed that, in the past, I might have innocently been in violation somehow.... I can't remember for sure, because I would have thought nothing of it at the time....
Is this what America has come to, where the right to choose which brand of beer you will drink, while watching whatever football team you prefer, is some of the very few freedoms left? Everything else can be criminalized? So weird....

[cjwils]

As far as I know, it is still perfectly legal for most people to ship a long gun by US mail. How can it be shipped if it is not legal to carry it into the Post Office?