Carry Ban

[BehindBlueI's]

After some thought I think a good option might be to say, I am not a police officer, are you planning on discriminating against me because of that, if so please give me your name and I'll gladly leave?
Personally I'm not a fan of OC but Constitutional carry is the law. I'm also not an attorney but common sense tells me that allowing LEOs to be armed and refusing citizens would be discriminating against them. Maybe someone with some legal "chops" might care to comment?

Discrimination, in and of itself is neither illegal nor immoral. If you'd rather eat chocolate than vanilla, that's discrimination. If you give a 10% discount to veterans but not to non-veterans, that's discrimination. If you'll sell alcohol to someone who's 45 but not someone who's 4, that's discrimination, etc. etc.

So, yes, it's a discriminatory practice. Not illegal, as few acts of discrimination are and many are codified. Your spouse gets legal rights in regards to you that your neighbor doesn't, which is both discriminatory and enshrined in law.

If it's immoral, INGO can argue about I suppose.

 

[NHT3]

I never OC. To me a business is like a home; their place...their rules. I never considered the thought that I have a constitutional right to enter and stay in a business. If asked to take my handgun to my vehicle, I have a permanently installed lock box in my vehicle, so no problem there. I use the vehicle lock box every time I go inside the post office or the court house. Some folks seem to go around with a chip on their shoulders. I consider that being armed, I should try to bend over backwards to avoid confrontations and take every opportunity to defuse a situation, even if it means swallowing my pride and walking away.

Don't misunderstand me, I would have happily walked away if asked to if for no other reason than I refuse to patronize a business that are anti 2A. Just puzzling if it's not discrimination to allow one and not another to exercise their 2A rights.

 

[Route 45]

Don't misunderstand me, I would have happily walked away if asked to if for no other reason than I refuse to patronize a business that are anti 2A. Just puzzling if it's not discrimination to allow one and not another to exercise their 2A rights.

You have no 2A right on someone else's private property. The Second Amendment restricts the government, not the mall.

 

[Born2vette]

I never OC. To me a business is like a home; their place...their rules. I never considered the thought that I have a constitutional right to enter and stay in a business. If asked to take my handgun to my vehicle, I have a permanently installed lock box in my vehicle, so no problem there. I use the vehicle lock box every time I go inside the post office or the court house. Some folks seem to go around with a chip on their shoulders. I consider that being armed, I should try to bend over backwards to avoid confrontations and take every opportunity to defuse a situation, even if it means swallowing my pride and walking away.

I too have a lock box in my car, but my understanding was always its illegal to even have a firearm in your car on post office property. I park next door (at the police station) and leave my firearm when I have to go to the post office. I may be wrong but have always erred on the safe side.

Any LEO or legal comment welcome.

 

[Sigblitz]

If you weren't so old I'd beat you senseless.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I too have a lock box in my car, but my understanding was always its illegal to even have a firearm in your car on post office property. I park next door (at the police station) and leave my firearm when I have to go to the post office. I may be wrong but have always erred on the safe side.

Any LEO or legal comment welcome.

Current case law is that the parking lot is also covered, see Bonidy v. USPS, which I *think* SCOTUS declined to visit after the lower court's ruling. The case law comes from the USPS being sued by an advocacy group over banning of firearms, not a criminal case. I am unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted over this, but I don't know every case every where, and that's even more so on the federal side. That said, I think the odds of prosecution are incredibly unlikely absent some other, more serious crime.

 

[BE Mike]

Current case law is that the parking lot is also covered, see Bonidy v. USPS, which I *think* SCOTUS declined to visit after the lower court's ruling. The case law comes from the USPS being sued by an advocacy group over banning of firearms, not a criminal case. I am unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted over this, but I don't know every case every where, and that's even more so on the federal side. That said, I think the odds of prosecution are incredibly unlikely absent some other, more serious crime.

Yep, it's against the USPS policy to have a firearm on any USPS property, including the parking lot. One of the USPS arguments was that it didn't have adequate staff to determine who would be legally entitled to carry on their property. My opinion is that that argument also means that they don't have adequate staff to enforce their policy. This also raises the question, "Does the USPS policy of no firearms on any part of their property have the force of law?" The answer is yes! 18 USC 930 makes the simple possession on the property a misdemeanor. Another question arises: Does the USPS have the burden of placing signage on the property that warns of the restriction regarding firearms? As far as me personally, I never stated that when I put my firearm in my permanent vehicle lock box, that my vehicle is parked on USPS property. The vehicle lock box comment was meant to refer to the OP's situation where there was concern that having to take his handgun to his vehicle and leave it, was an invitation to the criminal element to steal it.

 

[TheGrumpyGuy]

Yep, it's against the USPS policy to have a firearm on any USPS property, including the parking lot. One of the USPS arguments was that it didn't have adequate staff to determine who would be legally entitled to carry on their property. My opinion is that that argument also means that they don't have adequate staff to enforce their policy. This also raises the question, "Does the USPS policy of no firearms on any part of their property have the force of law?" The answer is yes! 18 USC 930 makes the simple possession on the property a misdemeanor. Another question arises: Does the USPS have the burden of placing signage on the property that warns of the restriction regarding firearms? As far as me personally, I never stated that when I put my firearm in my permanent vehicle lock box, that my vehicle is parked on USPS property. The vehicle lock box comment was meant to refer to the OP's situation where there was concern that having to take his handgun to his vehicle and leave it, was an invitation to the criminal element to steal it.

I have to wonder how many times a day this "law" gets violated by people using the drive-thru mailboxes on USPS property while carrying; quite a few I imagine.

 

[morve80]

I have to wonder how many times a day this "law" gets violated by people using the drive-thru mailboxes on USPS property while carrying; quite a few I imagine.

I didn't even know this was a law. So I've violated this many times. Lol.

 

[KokomoDave]

All the signs on the Kokomo south location of USPS were removed. If'n you don't want John Q. Public with his or her gat invading your hallowed grounds, you should warn people that they are forbidden to be able to defend themselves while visiting said area. The old signs said no guns, no knives and no chemical irritant.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

All the signs on the Kokomo south location of USPS were removed. If'n you don't want John Q. Public with his or her gat invading your hallowed grounds, you should warn people that they are forbidden to be able to defend themselves while visiting said area. The old signs said no guns, no knives and no chemical irritant.

Local PO has no signs on the door, but does have a small poster on the bulletin board about the size of a regular sheet of paper that lists the law prohibiting them. Along with everything that's illegal to mail, labeling required, etc.

 

[KittySlayer]

Well for the USPS rule/law I recall it came from the 1970's when the term "Going Postal" resulted from some mailmen going crazy at work.

 

[BE Mike]

Well for the USPS rule/law I recall it came from the 1970's when the term "Going Postal" resulted from some mailmen going crazy at work.

Looks like it's still happening:

 

[wcd]

Yep, it's against the USPS policy to have a firearm on any USPS property, including the parking lot. One of the USPS arguments was that it didn't have adequate staff to determine who would be legally entitled to carry on their property. My opinion is that that argument also means that they don't have adequate staff to enforce their policy. This also raises the question, "Does the USPS policy of no firearms on any part of their property have the force of law?" The answer is yes! 18 USC 930 makes the simple possession on the property a misdemeanor. Another question arises: Does the USPS have the burden of placing signage on the property that warns of the restriction regarding firearms? As far as me personally, I never stated that when I put my firearm in my permanent vehicle lock box, that my vehicle is parked on USPS property. The vehicle lock box comment was meant to refer to the OP's situation where there was concern that having to take his handgun to his vehicle and leave it, was an invitation to the criminal element to steal it.

It was my understanding you could still ship a long gun via US mail? So it’s ok as long as they are making a profit?

 

[Cameramonkey]

It was my understanding you could still ship a long gun via US mail? So it’s ok as long as they are making a profit?

My understanding is USPS can be used to ship firearms, but only between FFLs.

 

[04FXSTS]

My understanding is USPS can be used to ship firearms, but only between FFLs.

I could be wrong but it "may" be legal to ship a long gun by USPS without being an FFL. I do remember needing to ship a handgun years ago and wanted to ship USPS because of the cost of UPS. At the time I had a FFL03 C&R, USPS said I would have to be an FFL01 to ship a handgun. Jim.

 

[KLB]

Current case law is that the parking lot is also covered, see Bonidy v. USPS, which I *think* SCOTUS declined to visit after the lower court's ruling. The case law comes from the USPS being sued by an advocacy group over banning of firearms, not a criminal case. I am unaware of anyone ever being prosecuted over this, but I don't know every case every where, and that's even more so on the federal side. That said, I think the odds of prosecution are incredibly unlikely absent some other, more serious crime.

That ruling won't hold up today.

In yet another decision that thumbs its nose at the Supreme Court’s landmark D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago rulings, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held today that the Second Amendment does not protect gun rights outside of one’s home.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

My understanding is USPS can be used to ship firearms, but only between FFLs.

USPS can be used to ship a long gun between proper persons in state or to the owner in other states. IE driving to Alaska and can't take them through Canada you could ship them to yourself. Handguns require a FFL. And I believe can only go to a FFL or the owner.

I could be wrong but it "may" be legal to ship a long gun by USPS without being an FFL. I do remember needing to ship a handgun years ago and wanted to ship USPS because of the cost of UPS. At the time I had a FFL03 C&R, USPS said I would have to be an FFL01 to ship a handgun. Jim.

You are correct.

 

[xwing]

Current case law is that the parking lot is also covered, see Bonidy v. USPS, which I *think* SCOTUS declined to visit after the lower court's ruling.

Unfortunately that is correct. The federal district court ruled in Bonidy's favor (making a firearm in the postal parking lot legal). But this was overturned by the US Court of Appeals. SCOTUS denied cert.

I could be wrong but it "may" be legal to ship a long gun by USPS without being an FFL. I do remember needing to ship a handgun years ago and wanted to ship USPS because of the cost of UPS. At the time I had a FFL03 C&R, USPS said I would have to be an FFL01 to ship a handgun. Jim.

Currently there is no legal way for a non-FFL to ship a handgun. Until last year, it was legal via UPS. But UPS bowed to the antis and changed their policy. In addition, USPS is currently the only legal way to ship a long -gun for a non-FFL. Please see 18 USC 922. USP and FedEx policy has the practical effect of law due to 922(e). Please also see Postal Regulation 432.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That ruling won't hold up today.

Bonidy was after both.

USPS is federal property. Show where either of those cases ruled that certain areas, to include federal property, could not be regulated.