Liberty4Ever
Regular Member
I do a lot of business with the US Post Office. I'm in the Post Office almost every day. It's quite an inconvenience for me to abide by the federal ban on weapons in the post office, 9 C.F.R. § 232.1(l).
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/232-1-conduct-postal-property-19777182
Friday afternoon, I saw a uniformed Lexington police officer get out of his marked patrol car with a cute little girl that I assume to be his daughter. They entered the main post office on Nandino Road in Lexington, and of course, the police officer was openly carrying a Glock pistol. I certainly wasn't shocked by that. I'd have been surprised if the LEO had secured his weapon off USPS property. But it did cause me to start thinking about the law, and the double standard that results in the selective application of the law.
IANAL, but the applicability clause certainly seems to indicate that the law applies to everyone, and the LFUCG police are not exempt.
I'm aware of Kentucky law that grants special gun rights (so I guess they'd be gun privileges) to active duty and retired police, sheriffs, county attorneys and other privileged classes of people. I don't agree with the entire notion of special privileges for special people so I'm not a fan of such laws, but the discriminatory Kentucky law doesn't supersede federal law.
I suppose the uniformed police officer may have been construed to be operating under "official purposes" as referenced in the quoted law above, even though it looked like a personal errand after work... unless it was Bring Your Daughter To Work Day. I didn't see any definition for "official purposes" in the federal law and it seems odd that federal law would attempt to distinguish what is and isn't official purpose at the local level. What about a city councilperson? Trash collectors? Code enforcement? Boy Scouts have some very official looking uniforms. State game wardens? County animal control officers? Exactly what do I need to do to be official?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that police shouldn't be able to carry weapons in the post office. I'm saying that 9 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) is a bad law and we should ALL be able to carry in the post office.
Should I have effected a citizen's arrest on the offending officer?
Colorado Lawsuit Against Post Office Gun Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/post-office-gun-ban-lawsuit_n_1117098.html
Louisiana Case Lost By Postal Worker Who Had Gun In His Locked Car On USPS Property
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/21/no-guns-in-post-offices/#axzz20ix8Z29a
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/232-1-conduct-postal-property-19777182
(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.
Friday afternoon, I saw a uniformed Lexington police officer get out of his marked patrol car with a cute little girl that I assume to be his daughter. They entered the main post office on Nandino Road in Lexington, and of course, the police officer was openly carrying a Glock pistol. I certainly wasn't shocked by that. I'd have been surprised if the LEO had secured his weapon off USPS property. But it did cause me to start thinking about the law, and the double standard that results in the selective application of the law.
IANAL, but the applicability clause certainly seems to indicate that the law applies to everyone, and the LFUCG police are not exempt.
(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.
I'm aware of Kentucky law that grants special gun rights (so I guess they'd be gun privileges) to active duty and retired police, sheriffs, county attorneys and other privileged classes of people. I don't agree with the entire notion of special privileges for special people so I'm not a fan of such laws, but the discriminatory Kentucky law doesn't supersede federal law.
I suppose the uniformed police officer may have been construed to be operating under "official purposes" as referenced in the quoted law above, even though it looked like a personal errand after work... unless it was Bring Your Daughter To Work Day. I didn't see any definition for "official purposes" in the federal law and it seems odd that federal law would attempt to distinguish what is and isn't official purpose at the local level. What about a city councilperson? Trash collectors? Code enforcement? Boy Scouts have some very official looking uniforms. State game wardens? County animal control officers? Exactly what do I need to do to be official?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that police shouldn't be able to carry weapons in the post office. I'm saying that 9 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) is a bad law and we should ALL be able to carry in the post office.
Should I have effected a citizen's arrest on the offending officer?
Colorado Lawsuit Against Post Office Gun Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/28/post-office-gun-ban-lawsuit_n_1117098.html
Louisiana Case Lost By Postal Worker Who Had Gun In His Locked Car On USPS Property
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/21/no-guns-in-post-offices/#axzz20ix8Z29a