The robbers tied up the employees at gunpoint before filling the mail bags with cash, then making their getaway.
What the hell is wrong with those criminals?
Are they totally oblivious to this?
Like, guns are illegal in post offices, fellas.
DU-uh...
CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on tv ;-)
ReplyDeleteThe USPS "no guns" poster cites Federal a statute, 18 USC 390 (a), and a Federal regulation, 39 CFR 232.1, as the authority for prohibiting law-abiding civilians from lawfully carrying a firearm in the Post Office.
Note that, 18 USC 390 (a), begins with "Except as provided in subsection (d)
[prohibiting guns]", and subsection (d)(3) - which is not printed on the sign - says that "Subsection (a) shall not apply to ... (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."
The plain language of this stature seems specifically to ALLOW lawful carry - i.e. if you can carry lawfully on the sidewalk outside the PO, and are not committing some other crime while in the PO (e.g. violating some other federal, state or local law or regulation), the prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply.
Note that, 39 CFR 232.1 is a regulation which cannot supersede a statute, hence, if 18 USC 390 is applicable, then 39 CFR 232.1 cannot override it! See also 39 CFR 232.1 (p), which recognizes this fact.
Correspondence with a USPIS Atty has resulted in a letter claiming 39CFR232.1 and the "final authority" for their alleged gun ban, and, in a subsequent conversation, the atty stonewalled on "the agency's" interpretation that 18USC390 "does not apply"; apparently because they "interpret" the "lawful carrying ... [for] other lawful purposes" as applying "only to law enforcement officers", and refused to: 1) cite statutory authority for such an interpretation, and 2) put this assertion in writing.
Thanks Dave--yeah, I've seen this legal theory promulgated elsewhere, and like you, I'm not a lawyer either. It seems to make sense on paper, but whether or not the real world would tolerate its application is a whole 'nother matter--and I'm not aware of any of the proponents of this approach citing where their legal strategy has resulted in Establishment recognition of it.
ReplyDeleteThere are tax protestors who cite IRS code not applying to individuals, and they make a damn good case for it. And then they lose that case, because the govt has no intention of recognizing their claims.
I'll go one better than citing US Code: We have the 2nd Amendment--it couldn't be more clear--the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I wouldn't recommend walking down Main St. with an M-16 and relying on the government recognizing that right, however.
The Post Office since 1972 has been privatized. They are not even a "quasi" federal agency anymore. They used to be called the Bureau of the Post Office or something like that when they were federalized.
ReplyDeleteSo exactly how does 18 USC 930 apply to them if they are not federalized?
Finally, I found this on the net recently:
"39 USC 410 exempts Post Offices from 18 USC 930 (being a statute dealing with Federal facilities in general.) 39 USC 410, specifically dealing with post offices, states:
§ 410. Application of other laws
Release date: 2003-06-24
(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service."
So 930 does not apply and 239 is nothing more than a rule from a privatized entity.