• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carrying on Postal Property

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,924
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Based on the first post, I have additional info that the postal regulations regarding firearms on postal property is not supported by our nations history.

Bruen, reiterated “[T]he government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”’ In other words, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation; the adoption of the Second Amendment 1791 or the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendments 1868.

The United States Postal Service first promulgated regulations in 1972 governing conduct on USPS property. 39 C.F.R. 232.1 (USPS Property Regulation). See 37 Fed. Reg. 24,346 (Nov. 17, 1972). The USPS Property Regulation “applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service…and to all persons entering in or on such property.” See 39 C.F.R. 232.1(a). 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) of the USPS Property Regulation governs weapons and explosives on postal property. It provides that “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.” Therefore, history does not support the Postal Service’s first 1972 regulation regulating firearms on postal property.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,924
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
A Legal Theory is the scholarly study of the fundamental elements of a given legal system. If you mean Jurisprudence which traditionally concerns itself with the general theory of the nature of law and of legal reasoning behind it by referring to it as Legal Theory then that is nothing more than a memorandum of law. Court opinions are nothing more than a memorandum of law.

The question is what is testing this theory? I have carried in the post office without issue. The postmaster in Cincinnati had notice of the law. Did the postal workers notice? Who knows.

There is only one case where a postal worker was prosecuted under 18 USC § 930. The feds lost; firearms were never carried into the building. They were in his car.

The alphabet soup of federal agencies understands 18 USC 930(a) and (d)(3), They cannot plea ignorance of the law.
 

Attachments

  • 18 USC 930 Memorandum.pdf
    325.4 KB · Views: 2

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,924
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,924
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The case still has a ways to go.

No reason to believe that the government well not pull out all stops to drag appeals out as long as possible.
This is not a civil case, it's criminal. No dragging out an appeal. For the Gov. the get the dismissal reinstated the Gov. would have to show the Judge committed prejudicial error. The judge painted the Gov. into a corner with her well reasoned decision. Second, the unconstitutional statute only applies to the defendant.

But the important part of this dismissal is the court applied the Heller/Bruen test as to the statutes constitutionality. The Judge did a historical deep dive into the statutes legal viability back the 1791. The court could not find any and the Gov. offered none. In effect, the court laid the ground work for a civil challenge to the statute's constitutionality.

By the way, the Gov. indicted another postal employee under this same statute a number of years ago and that indictment was dismissed outright.

I could go on but maybe this will help:
 

rscottie

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
608
Location
Ashland, Kentucky, USA
So what does this mean for the average citizen?

Should we still understand that we will likely be arrested for carrying in to a Post Office, if caught?

Will we have to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,924
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
So what does this mean for the average citizen?

Should we still understand that we will likely be arrested for carrying in to a Post Office, if caught?

Will we have to fight them all the way to the Supreme Court?
The answer to your first question is I have no idea.

As to your second question, yes, you could be arrested out of the postal employee ignorance, but because I have said many times before on this forum, your best protection is to service notice on the post office and local post office. The first post is a notice to the post office as to your rights to carry on the post office property. Post 43 also explains the same right that applies in most federal buildings.

To the last question, who knows.

Look, you can't sit on your hands. The only rights you got are the rights you are willing to defend.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,924
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
So what does this mean for the average citizen?
Above, I answered I have no idea.
The question refers to an "average citizen." What is an "average citizen"? I don't think we are "average citizens." Our lives somewhat revolve around the second amendment, but we are really interested in our rights, all our rights. I don't think the average citizen thinks like we do. The average citizen doesn't care what the government does until it's in their own backyard. Then it is to late. So, yes I think I know how the average citizen thinks. And it is not good.
 
Top