I dropped by my local (Warner Robins) USPS facility to mail a package. As I went in, I felt that something was 'off'. When I came out, I suddenly realized that there were no longer any 'Gun-Buster' signs, or any other signs dealing with the carrying of weapons. Is anyone aware of some recent changes regarding carrying on the grounds, or am I just imagining things?
I'm not aware of any new changes to the law on this, but would be extremely happy to learn that there is. Keep in mind that it's not a sign that makes it illegal or not, if you decide to carry there.
I look for the signs when I go to the Post Office, and out of the last three or four, the signs have been in a different location. One was on the bulletin board in the PO box area, one was on the bulletin board in the office area, and I think one was on the main door. If the intent was to warn people not to bring guns inside, they aren't doing a good job.
About 30 years ago, I used to see Kennesaw's infamous Wild Man open carry a 1911 in their PO. Nobody said a word.
Coincidentally, this came up at South Metro GCO last night. A reputable source cited a court case (Avalon?) that overturned the PO parking lot prohibition. Can anyone confirm or deny, preferably with source citations?
The Rome PO has had those silly "no firearms" signs inside near the service counter where you had to look to actually find it. This morning I went in to drop off some packages and there was one right at the main entrance on the sliding door. No way were you going to miss that one.
Post office carry - including in the parking lot - is still prohibited. http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/supreme-court-no-guns-in-post-offices/ But unless they're going to check every car that comes on their property..........
Yep. The USPS parking lot prohibition has in fact been denied a hearing (i.e. upheld, at least for now) by the US Supreme Court. On July 9, 2013, the district court ordered the United States Postal Service to take the necessary action to permit Mr. Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office. On June 26, 2015, by 2-1, a panel of the Tenth Circuit court of Appeals ruled in favor of the federal defendants both as to the parking lot and the interior of the building. On December 8, 2015, Mr. Bonidy filed a petition for writ of certiorari. On March 21, 2016, the Court denied the petition. Unless someone has newer information, that denial ended the fight for firearms in post office parking lots. At this time I agree with the opinion of Handgunlaw.us, which States: "Post Office Postal regulations prohibit the possession of firearms in their buildings and in their parking lots or any property they own. March 2016 the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal and affirmed a lower Court ruling that the Post Office could ban firearms in its buildings and parking lot." https://www.mountainstateslegal.org...-v.-united-states-postal-service#.WmyZeq6nG70
Per Jerry Henry: "The Post Office is in the process of rewriting some of their regulations and firearms is one of the issues. The post office is fighting to keep them out of post office buildings but have acquiesced to allow in parking lots. This is still not in the regulations but is expected to be in the next publication of the regulations. There is a posting at the Fayetteville Post Office stating the law. It is inside and to the right of the entrance door when looking at the parking lot."
My PO is in a major shopping center. No parking spaces specifically labeled as PO parking. Is the whole shopping center off limits because the PO occupies a very small space (the smallest building space) in the whole center? No parking is at the front of any retailers. All parking is separated by a wide path for bi directional traffic.
There is NO statutory authority for banning guns from post offices. This regulation is made up with no statutory authority. It is not right that bureaucrats can make law without congressional approval. This is not interpreting a law with congressional approval. It is flat out making a criminal law exist where none existed before. 18 USC 930 (d)(3) says Subsection (a) shall not apply to firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Now hunting is out inside the Post Office, but if carrying on a state license for self defense purposes is not "other lawful purposes," then the English language has ceased to have meaning. Regulators should not be permitted merely to make things up and then impose them upon persons as a crime, specifically when Congress says "other lawful purposes" is a complete defense to the crime. This is an abuse of regulation. Good luck finding a federal judge who agrees with me (you won't). This is an insurmountable obstacle. Note I have not discussed the Second Amendment at all. This is a very simply textual analysis of the controlling statute. It says what it says. The language is very easy to understand. No special training in the law is required to to understand that the statute says it shall not apply to firearms and dangerous weapons possessed at federal facilities for hunting or other lawful purposes. If you ain't there to rob the post office, then your purpose is probably lawful.
I have a question concerning USPS parking that is on a main street. There are about 5 - 6 parking places in front of the post office but they are on a main street in town. I wouldn't think that the post office owns those parking places. Are those spaces still off-limits?
So how do we hold these so-called judges accountable? Why aren't there any checks and balances on the judicial branch?
Would President Trump offer any of us a pardon if we used our pistol inside a Post Office to stop an armed robbery?
There could not be an armed robbery in a post office no weapons are allowed, even in the parking lot.
Not unless the federal government owns the entire shopping center which usually is not the case. They're just a tenant like all the other retailers.
Are the parking spaces specifically designated as PO only parking? They probably have an agreement with the city/town for their allocation for PO parking. But the city/town owns the road (and the parking spaces) and the sidewalk that's probably in front of the PO.