Guns in Post Offices

[HankB]

A Federal district judge in Florida just ruled the Post Office's ban on customers carrying guns in the post office is unconstitutional.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ban-guns-post-offices-unconstitutional-144334992.html

I expect there will be further legal battles, but it was a Trump-appointed judge who issued this ruling. Maybe the "never-Trump" conservatives ought to reconsider their "Orange Man Bad" position.

Also note the story appeared in Reuters, not a US source.

[Ben]

I will definitely be following this. I pretty much always have a gun on when I go to the local post office, just being a little more aware of "concealed means concealed" than I usually am, since in most of my state, other than being grey man, "concealed" is just a suggestion and nobody cares. For that matter, I'm pretty sure at least a couple of the employees in my local post office carry.

On the rare occasion I go to a big post office in the city, I usually end up leaving the gun in the car. I have always been confused on the law regarding "on post office property" and if it encompasses the parking lot or not. It's of course one of those dumb situations to me, in that, while small, there's an exponentially greater chance that I would need my gun in the city post office compared to my rural post office.

[HankB]

. . . I have always been confused on the law regarding "on post office property" and if it encompasses the parking lot or not.  . . .

This is one of those situations where state law and Federal law may be in conflict. In Texas, nearly all parking lots are explicitly excluded from "premesis" restrictions on concealed carry. Federal law? Unclear. And in some cases, it's not at all clear that the USPS actually owns the parking lot. Nobody opining on various websites dealing with Texas concealed carry has cited any case law that I've seen. (I'd welcome a link if case law exists!) Federal law mostly trumps state law, except where things like state's rights come into play, but it's not clear to me where that line exists, and I'm not interested in finding out the hard way.

There's also a school of legal thought - a very small minority of legal thought - that says due to a supposed loophole in the verbiage of the Federal law, a Texas CHL holder can carry concealed in a post office.

Nobody I know wants to be a test case, and so far I haven't seen any Texas case law establishing exactly what the limits are.

I've read and been told (in my original CHL class) that state/local LEOs in Texas have no interest in enforcing Federal law that conflicts with State law, but again, I don't want to be a test case.

[Hawkmoon]

On the rare occasion I go to a big post office in the city, I usually end up leaving the gun in the car. I have always been confused on the law regarding "on post office property" and if it encompasses the parking lot or not. It's of course one of those dumb situations to me, in that, while small, there's an exponentially greater chance that I would need my gun in the city post office compared to my rural post office.

Yes, if the parking lot is USPS property, the prohibition includes the parking lot. If it's a USPS branch office in a mall or shopping center with shared parking, it doesn't apply.

The same applies to VA facilities, under a different regulation.

[Ben]

From an article I read this morning:

Mizelle said post offices have existed since the country's founding and federal law did not ban guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. She said there is no historical practice dating back to the 1700s that justifies the ban.

I have never thought about the dates regarding bans in federal buildings. Does anyone know what happened in 1964? Was this due to the Kennedy assassination (1963)?

[HankB]

From an article I read this morning:

I have never thought about the dates regarding bans in federal buildings. Does anyone know what happened in 1964? Was this due to the Kennedy assassination (1963)?

There was a BIG push for gun control after the Kennedy assassination. This dovetailed into fear of Vietnam War protests escalating and the mail order sale of guns. It took a while, but that's ultimately why we got GCA '68. Other regulations - like the '64 ban on carry in Federal buildings - were just a part of the anti-gun efforts. A spate of airline hijackings (especially in the '68 - '72 time frame) kept the pressure on for more restrictions even after GCA '68 - which is why we have TSA today.

This onerous law (GCA '68) was actually aided and abetted by major gun manufacturers (e.g., Winchester, Remington, etc.) who saw it as a means of choking off a veritable flood of foreign and domestic milsurp arms  - M98 Mausers, Enfields, Springfields, Garands, Carbines, various pistols - cutting into their potential sales.

[K Frame]

No way in hell am I going to carry a gun into a post office in Northern Virginia.

Where Castle Key lives? I have no doubt that people carry guns into the post office down there every day and no one gives it a second thought.

[BobR]

I am not sure what happened at my local neighborhood trailer post office but the one employee there took down all of the local for sale and services fliers in the entryway and posted several "No Guns Allowed" posters. The main Post Office here has not and I would bet people are carrying guns in there everyday, I know there is at least one every time I visit as long as I am not OC. Concealed really means concealed in this case.

bob

[Ben]

I am not sure what happened at my local neighborhood trailer post office but the one employee there took down all of the local for sale and services fliers in the entryway and posted several "No Guns Allowed" posters. The main Post Office here has not and I would bet people are carrying guns in there everyday, I know there is at least one every time I visit as long as I am not OC. Concealed really means concealed in this case.

bob

I don't recall signage at any of the city post offices I have been to, but mine absolutely does NOT have any "no guns allowed" signs. I made a point a while back of looking on every possible posting location.

It would be interesting to get a count here of any members who see signs at their local post office. You would think it would be universal if it was mandatory out of DC.

[230RN]

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-01-13/ban-on-guns-in-post-offices-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules

"Mizelle said allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities as a condition of admittance would allow it to 'abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence.' "

Wow, that's the first time I've personally heard the First Amendment term "abridged" used with respect to 2A.

Finally, that's a direct judicial attack on the "antis'" long term strategy of legislative harassment of that fundamental right.

Even kittens carry concealed weapons.

Terry, "hoists glass with a 'Hear, hear'," 230RN

[castle key]

Where Castle Key lives? I have no doubt that people carry guns into the post office down there every day and no one gives it a second thought.

That's likely correct.

[Ben]

The post office is responding that the "no firearms" thing is their policy, hence it's not unconstitutional. 

It appears from the docs shown in the video that USPS is focusing on postal employees. Though the video made the cautionary note about any customers testing the policy maybe spending time in the slammer and having some big legal fees.

https://youtu.be/Zz64ZlxJlSo

[Hawkmoon]

The post office is responding that the "no firearms" thing is their policy, hence it's not unconstitutional. 

It appears from the docs shown in the video that USPS is focusing on postal employees. Though the video made the cautionary note about any customers testing the policy maybe spending time in the slammer and having some big legal fees.

https://youtu.be/Zz64ZlxJlSo

It's a bit more than just "policy."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1

§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to—

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.