Legal to have a concealed weapon in Post Office parking lot?

[bobapunk]

Just to make sure you are reading the Federal statute:

 

 

39 C.F.R. § 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.

 

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person

while on postal property may carry

firearms, other dangerous or deadly

weapons, or explosives, either openly

or concealed, or store the same on

postal property, except for official purposes.

 

How is this not clear as day, xd9subcompact?

[xd9subcompact]

Haven't taken a lot of time studying traffic laws. What is the relationship between state government (which sets the legal speed limit), the State Police (who enforce that speed limit on interstates) and the Federal Highway Administration?

 

And how does that relate the the USPS banning firearms on property under its control?

 

It doesn't matter if you like the sign, or where the sign is posted. The fact is that firearms are not allowed on USPS controlled property unless for "official purposes".If firearms are/were not prohibited in customer vehicles, why did Bonidy vs USPS make it all the way to a U.S. District Court?

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lots of questions, first, You are the one who brought up the speed limit signs as the analogy, I just pointed out you didn't know what you were talking about. If you don't know, then you don't know.

Second, was the Avon, CO Post Office parking area in the Bonidy case posted? If you don't know, then you don't know.

 

I read a lot of great stuff on this forum. I also read a lot of assumptions. So I post the regulations, I post the US code. It all says there must be signs conspicuously posted. Others dismiss it all, and even if it looks like I might possibly be right, they revert to the "I wouldn't want to be the test case" position.

Of course nobody wants to be a test case. But the rules for how the law applies are in writing. Now some say "knowingly" doesn't apply, I suppose the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But first we have to know what the law actually says.

Where I live the main post office and the branch have exactly one sign that a visitor to the facility can see. At the Main office, the parking area has no signage other that one that tells where the handicapped people get to park.

As you go in the building, there is an area (the lobby) where the boxes are. There is no such sigh posted. If you turn to the right to go to a window (to buy some stamps or whatever), you must pass through a set of glass doors that they can lock up after the office closes. Inside this area, on the wall behind you as you are waiting in line to be "next", there is the sign, it is inside a glass wall case along with a bunch of other notices. In front of the case is some big display with a bunch of postal supplies on it. I am 6'1" so I can see the sign in the case. If someone was a few inches shorter, they would never see it.

At the local branch, there is no signage about guns outside the building. After entering and walking up to the window, after you were to conclude your business, you might see it on the wall near where you exit if you were looking, as it is also in a glass wall case along with a bunch of other papers in there. And if someone was standing at the countertop right there at the glass case, I doubt you would see it.

It would be laughed out of court to expect me to know who owns the building, if there are any other tenants inside that rent, and be expected to know that there is some little 8x10 sign one some wall indoors that thereby means I can't have my gun in the parking lot. I guess I should be glad they don't just post it in the employee breakroom and call that conspicuous.

 

 

con·spic·u·ous [kuhn-spik-yoo-uhs]

adjective

1. easily seen or noticed; readily visible or observable: a conspicuous error.

2. attracting special attention, as by outstanding qualities or eccentricities: He was conspicuous by his booming laughter.

 

If the government was asserting positive control over the parking lot as a sensitive area, they would put up a sign or two outdoors.

 

I have posted the US Code and the CFR's for the post office.

A violation of the US Code explicitly states the signs must be posted at the points of entry to leave no doubt. This is a federal law with serious criminal charges that could result in a fine, imprisonment for up to a year or both.

A violation of the postal regulation can result in up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail or both.

 

The signage required by federal facilities where firearms are prohibited "shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility"

The post office signage required by regulation 'shall be posted and kept posted in a conspicuous place on all such property"

 

So I don't know what else I could type to make this any clearer.

[bobapunk]

The Post Office that I normally go to has moved their sign so that it is visible as soon as you are at the outer door (it is a double door entrance). The ladies that work there told me that they had received new signs and instructions to post them AT THE ENTRANCE. Previously, the poster was posted in the lobby area with the PO Boxes.

 

I understand your position, I still disagree. Property under the control of the USPS is a no gun zone (unless your are shipping it, or a cop).

 

If you get on the interstate, and there not a speed limit sign posted on or immediately after the on ramp, are you free to drive as fast as you like until you come upon a speed limit sign? The sign applies to all of the real property...

 

If a tree branch grows in front of a traffic sign, or the post office does not place their poster in a location that you like, the law still applies.

[xd9subcompact]

Actually, if a tree branch grows in front of a traffic sign or signal, and you document that that sign or signal was the only way you could have seen the restriction if it had not been blocked, (due to the negligence of the street/highway department in that they improperly maintained such, you will be found not guilty.

 

Just because you keep saying something is so doesn't make it so. In post $61 you bolded the parts that you liked, and went right past the last sentence in the first paragraph, the one that says shall be posted in a conspicuous place. A reasonable person would ask the question: Is a sign that can't be seen from the parking lot really posted in a conspicuous manner?

Next, a reasonable person would ask: If the signs were considered conspicuous when they were posted indoors at the post office, then why does the post office now feel the need to place them at the entrance?

Finally, a reasonable person would ask: Other than the Dorosan case (where the man parked in the controlled area where the trucks are staged and loaded, which in my observations is always fenced area that has the signs, since there is valuable property being protected in the care custody and control of USPS), what case law do you read that demonstrates that your position is correct? You can't quote Bonidy, since that was a civil suit and you don't even know if the Avon, CO post office has any signs outside.

[quackersmacker]

 

 

..............I think we're done here.

 

Thanks, Rat! You went ahead and made my day!

[spec5]

I think a USPS controlled parking lot is prohibited by law.

I went to post office just yesterday. Parked on the street instead. Those other customers should have thanked me.

It should have stopped with Post #2 shown here. I hope it stops with this post. We are going in circles.