[JMJ2]

First of all I beleive you can't carry a pistol into a post office; I'm not sure though. A guy I know carried his pistol in the post office concealed; I saw him printing and I told him after we left that I thought post offices were off limits. He swore it wasn't.

 

[tace]

And the signs on the wall saying its against Federal Law didn't settle the argument?

 

[GAGunOwner]

In GA post offices are off-limits because of the public gathering law anyway. They are gov't buildings.

 

[mzmtg]

There is debate over whether or not the federal law makes them off limits since it allows carry "for other lawful purposes."

BUT, in GA all publicly owned buildings are off limits, so it's not up for debate.

EDIT:

The plot thickens: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

There is debate over whether or not the federal law makes them off limits since it allows carry "for other lawful purposes."

BUT, in GA all publicly owned buildings are off limits, so it's not up for debate.

EDIT:

The plot thickens: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

Clearly, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1)[,] which bans possession of weapons solely on postal property is not unconstitutional as applied. Neither Heller nor Emerson involved gun control regulations banning possession of “arms†on federal property. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Heller described the District’s statute as a law that “totally bans handgun possession†extends to the home and “requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.

Case law from one of the first post-Heller federal deicisions. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1215449415

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

More:

The regulation at issue in this case is far more limited in application in that it (1) applies only on the confines of properly noticed postal property, (2) is sanctioned by both the Property and Postal Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and (3) falls within the Heller Court’s category and non-exhaustive list of excepted longstanding prohibitions on carrying firearms â€"- i.e., “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.â€

Indeed, federal law (OSHA) requires employers to abate workplace hazards and encourages employers to take measures to prevent gun-related injuries. Surely, the United States Postal Service would be remiss if it failed to practice what federal law requires. Without question, § 232.1(1) bolsters the United States Postal Service’s zero tolerance for workplace violence and is a regulation designed to maintain safety and order on postal property. 18 U.S.C. § 930 (a), which prohibits possession of dangerous weapons, serves the same purpose within federal facilities. Congress has the authority to regulate safety of the post office and its property, notwithstanding the individual right to bear arms in the home, “where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute.â€

The ban at issue does not affect the right of all individuals to bear arms at home or traveling in a vehicle to and from work through high crime areas. Its reach does not extend beyond the noticed, gated confines of United States Postal Services’ property. It is narrowly tailored to effect public and workplace safety solely on postal property consistent with the Property and Postal Clauses. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) criminalizes knowing possession of dangerous weapons, but only within the confines of a federal facility/building. Regulations forbidding the possession or carrying of firearms “in sensitive places†such as federal and/or postal property abound; these longstanding prohibitions have been upheld.