Carry in USPS case

swinokur · Oct 2, 2014

This will be fun to watch.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/federal-appeals-court-mull-guns-post-offices-25890145

Doctor_M · Oct 2, 2014

Couldn't he find a bigger hat?

Schipperke · Oct 2, 2014

Doctor_M said:
Couldn't he find a bigger hat?

"Architect"

PJDiesel · Oct 2, 2014

Schipperke said:
"Architect"

I was looking for "prospector".

krucam · Oct 2, 2014

The pic was taken at the 10th Circuit Court House. Yesterday, Oct 1 was the Oral Arguments in his case at CA10.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=45071

swinokur · Oct 2, 2014

Doctor_M said:
Couldn't he find a bigger hat?

He stole it from Festus.
.
.

clandestine · Oct 2, 2014

Would this apply to NPS buildings too?

swinokur · Oct 2, 2014

I'm thinking yes, but IANAL

Rack&Roll · Oct 2, 2014

Geez, I had forgotten how ragged that hat on Festus was. He probably wears his good hat to attend Festivus.

This "sensitive places" doctrine is just horse shiite, because there are no real, measurable parameters that define it.

swinokur · Oct 2, 2014

Isn't it Festisus?

:lol2:

krucam · Oct 2, 2014

clandestine said:
Would this apply to NPS buildings too?

Not immediately, impacting only the US Postal Service policy. But a positive Circuit ruling, especially in the shadows of some of the best National Parks in the Country with some really large and potentially dangerous critters, would be immediately usable in any challenge to NPS properties I would think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one can carry on NPS land, in your campsite on NPS land, but you can't use NPS facilities (including a restroom)....is that correct?

swinokur · Oct 2, 2014

Not quite. I'm paraphrasing, but IIRC the laww states you can't carry in a building in the NPS system where Federal employes regular work, like a visitor center or a snack bar.

That would make restrooms OK.

IANAL

This is from an NPS FAQ but I have never checked it's accuracy

[FONT=&quot]The interior of a federal building (this includes any rest stops, information centers, and concession stands bearing the National Park Service logo) falls under Title 18, Sec 930 “Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities” ( http://tinyurl.com/yg2zhwb )
However, Title 18, Sec 930 does stipulate the following
(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.

So there shouldn’t be any confusion as restricted buildings MUST BY LAW be “posted conspicuously” that weapons are not permitted. If it’s not posted, it’s not restricted (Unless you have been notified by an authorized person and asked to leave because then you've had "actual notice" under subsection H...[/FONT]

clandestine · Oct 2, 2014

krucam said:
Not immediately, impacting only the US Postal Service policy. But a positive Circuit ruling, especially in the shadows of some of the best National Parks in the Country with some really large and potentially dangerous critters, would be immediately usable in any challenge to NPS properties I would think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one can carry on NPS land, in your campsite on NPS land, but you can't use NPS facilities (including a restroom)....is that correct?

That's as I understand too. What really sucks is some NPS land you can't access without going I to a NPS building, this disarmed. Jametown and Yorktown are 2 I had to disarm at recently.

swinokur · Oct 2, 2014

This is from the actual Federal code.

Definition of a federal Faciltiy

Relevant Text from Title 18, Sec 930
“Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities”
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]So unless some guy is employed to hand out towels in there and give you a spritz of [FONT=&quot]scented[/FONT] water, [FONT=&quot]bathrooms[/FONT] seem ok.

[FONT=&quot]ETA-I am referring to stand alone restroom facilities, not a bathroom in[FONT=&quot]side a [FONT=&quot]vis[FONT=&quot]itor[/FONT][/FONT] center or s[FONT=&quot]n[/FONT]ack bar. Those are off limits to carry.

[FONT=&quot]IANAL[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT] [/FONT]

press1280 · Oct 2, 2014

It's too bad CA10 doesn't put oral arguments on their website, you have to get it from the court apparently.

navycraig · Oct 3, 2014

swinokur said:
This is from the actual Federal code.

Definition of a federal Faciltiy

[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]So unless some guy is employed to hand out towels in there and give you a spritz of [FONT=&quot]scented[/FONT] water, [FONT=&quot]bathrooms[/FONT] seem ok.

[FONT=&quot]ETA-I am referring to stand alone restroom facilities, not a bathroom in[FONT=&quot]side a [FONT=&quot]vis[FONT=&quot]itor[/FONT][/FONT] center or s[FONT=&quot]n[/FONT]ack bar. Those are off limits to carry.

[FONT=&quot]IANAL[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT] [/FONT] [/FONT]

Just returned from a vacation to New Orleans, where I carried almost everywhere we went. On a day when were were going to visit the City Museam and I knew that carry was not allowed, we also went to the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve, run by NPS. Upon entering, there are stand alone restrooms with signs clearly stating that firearms are not allowed within the facility. These were not part of the visitor's center, which was located elsewhere.

PO2012 · Oct 4, 2014

As mentioned by swinokur in an earlier post, to be in violation of the law, the facility that you entered must have a sign posted at every public entrance stating that weapons are prohibited. If there are no signs posted and you enter the facility and are discovered you have not broken the law until personally informed of the law. If there are signs posted at the entrance you used but there's another public entrance somewhere else that didn't have a sign posted and you enter the facility while armed you have not broken the law until personally informed of the law.

When I was an MP we used to have civilians coming through the gates all the time with firearms. I explained to my men that they were not to apprehend any of these people since the post did not have the signage required by law and told them that if anyone else, regardless of rank, ordered them to make apprehension they were to refuse. The gate guards and senior NCOs used to get furious when I would tell them that anyone with a CCW could carry on post but there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it.

The vast majority of federal facilities are not properly posted and therefore you are legally allowed to carry weapons in said facilities as long as you are otherwise in compliance with state and federal law and no one personally informs you of the prohibition. I have yet to visit a post office that was properly posted. Their little "no guns" sign on the wall next to the packing tape and envelopes offered for sale does not meet the requirements set forth in the statute.

swinokur · Oct 4, 2014

And also if a stand alone restroom with no Federal employees working in that restroom is posted with no firearms signs, it's done in violation of the law. Not saying you might not get arrested, but the signage doesn't comply with the statute.

PO2012 · Oct 4, 2014

swinokur said:
And also if a stand alone restroom with no Federal employees working in that restroom is posted with no firearms signs, it's done in violation of the law. Not saying you might not get arrested, but the signage doesn't comply with the statute.

Exactly. This is not a contested issue. For a person carrying a firearm (or other weapon) which he or she may otherwise legally possess and carry to be criminally charged with carrying said weapon inside of a federal facility or federal court facility certain signs must be posted in certain places in a certain manner and the facility itself must meet certain criteria. If those conditions are not met then as a matter of law you are not guilty and should never have been arrested in the first place. Any Officer or Agent who might take you into custody would be derelict in their duties as would be any supervisor who ordered them to arrest you or who having knowledge of your arrest failed to order your immediate release.

Things like this are why it's important for the Police to actually read the laws they are supposed to enforce. You can't refuse to obey an unlawful order if you don't know what the law says in the first place. The same thing goes for the Constitution. How can you support and defend that which you've never seen? One thing that upsets me about Maryland is that you can be MPCTC certified without having ever been forced to read the United States Constitution or the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights. It's absurd and leads to incidents such as the Officer who arrested a woman and her husband for "trespassing on a public street" or the Officer who arrested a man for "openly carrying a concealed weapon". In the latter case, the man had a defense attorney who allowed his client to proceed on a not guilty agreed statement of facts (where the State's offer was jail time, by the way) and the judge actually listened to this nonsense and found the defendant guilty. It was only after the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the case that the man's conviction was voided. Unprofessional and insane.

kcbrown · Oct 5, 2014

PO2012 said:
One thing that upsets me about Maryland is that you can be MPCTC certified without having ever been forced to read the United States Constitution or the Maryland Constitution and Declaration of Rights. It's absurd and leads to incidents such as the Officer who arrested a woman and her husband for "trespassing on a public street" or the Officer who arrested a man for "openly carrying a concealed weapon". In the latter case, the man had a defense attorney who allowed his client to proceed on a not guilty agreed statement of facts (where the State's offer was jail time, by the way) and the judge actually listened to this nonsense and found the defendant guilty. It was only after the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the case that the man's conviction was voided. Unprofessional and insane.

I believe you will find that the courts are, over time, becoming less concerned about whether or not you followed the law, and more concerned about whether or not you did what you were told regardless of what the law says.

The former is rule of law. The latter is rule of tyranny. Servility is now valued more than abiding by the law.

Tyranny is slowly on the rise in this country. It has been for quite a while, but it is now accelerating. It won't be long before there is no liberty left.

Carry in USPS case

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

AR-15 Savant

In a State of Bliss

R.I.P

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

AR-15 Savant

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Super Genius

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics