is a bank off limits?

[22many]

So heres the deal, I was talking with a buddy the other day about where you can and cannot cc. Post offices, federal buildings, ect, ect. He says that banks are off limits also because they are insured by the government.

Anybody know about this? Is it true? I dont recall hearing this when I got my CWP.

Read More

 

[ZachS]

Not true, but many banks maintain their own policies against CC.

 

[glockguy]

i carry into my bank all the time... and Iv known people who also OC into Banks with no problems... I dont think they are off limits

 

[22many]

i carry into my bank all the time... and Iv known people who also OC into Banks with no problems... I dont think they are off limits

I do too. But they are federally insured so that made me question it.

 

[Riot]

I do too. But they are federally insured so that made me question it.

Being Federally insured has nothing to do with it....read USC 18-930, it must be a Federal Facility (i.e. Post Office, Federal Court Room, Military Instillation, ect.). All US servicemen are "Federally Insured", does that mean they cannot carry a firearm....ever?

Oh, and it must be posted as well...

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Not true, but many banks maintain their own policies against CC.

It must be posted as a "Gun Free Zone"...so unless you are an employee, how else would you know of their policies?

 

[22many]

Thanks Riot.

 

[56kninja]

It must be posted as a "Gun Free Zone"...so unless you are an employee, how else would you know of their policies?

Well first I'd look for bad guys with ski masks, their head hung low as they walk away from the bank with an empty bad and their AK dragging on the ground.

Then I would look for the sign and realize he got trumped by the gun free zone.

 

[CharlesAFerg]

Thanks Riot.

I don't think the sign thing applies in Oregon, but he's right about the federal facilities. He's from Wash, so remember that there are differences with regards to some things such as signage.

 

[cwegga]

Also in some states, state law bans CC in banks and other places but that is not the case in Washington.

 

[tionico]

Washington does not put banks off limits for arms. However, any private enterprise (and banks are...) can decide their place is off limits to arms, but must post adequate notice at all entrances. Worst case is you can be asked to leave...... and if you refuse, can be charged with criminal tresspass. I've carried into my own bank many times..... but they all know me by name, and they all trust me. Even if any of them thought guns are evil and can fly out of my holster and shoot at will, I doubt they'd even think twice if they realised I were armed.

Some states do, indeed, ban arms from banks.... best thing, if you're travelling, go to a sight that has state gun law roundups, and their rules will spell it out. Know before you go sort of thing. Whenever I'm travelling into another state, I always find out their CC rules, whether my permit works there, and what kinds of places are off limits.

Funny thing, the Post Office is considered a Federal Facility for CC regulations.... but in reality they are NOT a government entity.. they are a private corporation. But RUN by government mandate. A nice manifestation of fascism..... where private entities OWN the means of production, but the government CONTROL it.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

One of the guys I work with used to open carry into his bank until one day they asked him not to carry his gun in with him. The next week they were robbed.

The next time he went into the bank and heard they got robbed he commented to the teller that they may not have been robbed if they allowed their customers to carry.

 

[DootyBeet]

Funny thing, the Post Office is considered a Federal Facility for CC regulations.... but in reality they are NOT a government entity.. they are a private corporation. But RUN by government mandate. A nice manifestation of fascism..... where private entities OWN the means of production, but the government CONTROL it.

I'm glad you brought this point up tionico. The way I understand it, is that it IS legal in Oregon to CC in a postal facility. The employees aren't even paid directly by the goverment, they get their checks from a private contractor.
I always wonder when I hear someone spreading the misinformation that you can't carry in a Post Office. Based upon what? Please show me a ORS or other that says you can't.

 

[Izzy]

I live in a small town (things are different here) & I have been known to OC in the bank & post office.

I have never had a problem.

 

[DootyBeet]

Another tid bit on Post Office CCW.
I frequent the Main Post Office on 25th and have for about 7 years since getting a PO box. The prior postmaster for this facilty had a 'No Weapons Allowed' sign on the entrance doors. When the new postmaster, I think about 4 years ago, came onboard, the sign was taken down.

 

[Kimber Custom]

I'm glad you brought this point up tionico. The way I understand it, is that it IS legal in Oregon to CC in a postal facility. The employees aren't even paid directly by the goverment, they get their checks from a private contractor.
I always wonder when I hear someone spreading the misinformation that you can't carry in a Post Office. Based upon what? Please show me a ORS or other that says you can't.

This is something I have been meaning to look into further.

OFF's FAQ's has this:

In fact, there is some indication that you are not even barred from the Post Office if you are there for a "lawful purpose." (Consult your attorney.)

But they don't elaborate.

There is a sign in the Post Office that states no firearms but I've never stopped to read the fine print nor is it posted at the entrance.

 

[cwegga]

I'm glad you brought this point up tionico. The way I understand it, is that it IS legal in Oregon to CC in a postal facility. The employees aren't even paid directly by the goverment, they get their checks from a private contractor.
I always wonder when I hear someone spreading the misinformation that you can't carry in a Post Office. Based upon what? Please show me a ORS or other that says you can't.

It might be legal under Oregon law, but it is not under federal law and the postal code. The postal code part is in Title 39 CFR 232.1 it says

(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.

Anyway smarter people than me have already done research.

If you skim the rest read this link.
Here is a great post that goes pretty in depth into the issue:
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...concealed-carry-us-post-office.html#post20121

Something to keep in mind. My understanding is that the post office firearm ban extends to the whole property so leaving it in your car in the parking lot isn't an option. Read the appropriate laws for yourself and make decisions accordingly.

 

[22many]

Ok, so I understand the fact of private property regarding CC. Ive carried in banks many times and will continue to do so.

Now, doesnt federal laws trump state laws? And if they do then no carry in the post office? I never have but this is a interesting topic and I would really like to hear more of your guys (and gals) thoughts.

 

[cwegga]

You can't carry into a post office unless...... Read the exceptions. All gun laws say that you can't do this and you can't do that but then have a list of exemptions afterwards. Concerning the post office carry... (I'm not brave enough to do it myself even though I read it to be legal.) ... It says you can't carry on federal land or buildings except for hunting or other lawful purpose. The other lawful purpose is what concealed carry rests on for the sake of this discusion. What does other lawful purpose mean?

Yes, you are referring to this:

Looking at 18 USC 930, it would appear, at first blush, that carrying firearms is prohibited. That section provides:

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

Release date: 2004-08-06

a. Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

So part of the confusion is rooted in the wording of this section. The prohibition applies to "Federal facilit(ies)" except as provide for in subsection (d). Subsection (d) provides:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to-

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Here people with better legal understanding than myself explain why you might not want to trust in the "lawful purpose" part.

Many people have seized upon (d)(3) with the argument that they have a CHL, so their carrying of a firearm is an "other lawful purpose" and therefore they are exempt from the sign. This is problematic for several reasons. First, 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.

(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:

(1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;

(2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States;

Thus it would appear, by operation of 39 USC 410, that 18 USC 930, a law that deals generally with Federal property, does not apply to the Powers of the Postal Service. Rather, the only provisions of 18 USC that would apply are those specific to the post office e.g. Theft of Mail, Robbing Post Offices, Stealing Postal Money Orders etc. Further evidence of the proposition that 18 USC 930 does not apply to post offices is in the numbering of the aforementioned 39 CFR 232.1. As we will later examine, 39 CFR 232.1 clearly prohibits carrying firearms. CFR sections typically draw their numbering from the underlying laws that they are promulgated under, although there are numerous exceptions. The numbering of 39 CFR would be further evidence that 39 USC controls the situation, and not 18 USC.

The second problem with relying on 18 USC 930(d)(3) is that this section in no way EMPOWERS anyone to carry a gun; rather, that section simply states that 18 USC 930 does not apply to someone is lawfully carrying a gun incident to some lawful purpose. In Ohio's law, there is a big difference between something NOT BEING PROHIBITED and something BEING SPECIFICALLY LICENSED. Just because a statute says that certain conduct is not prohibited by that particular statute does not automatically equate into authority to engage in the conduct.

This is an important distinction, because the other part of the post office sign cites 39 CFR 232.1, which clearly does prohibit guns in post offices. In pertinent part, it states:

(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.
The argument advanced against 39 CFR 232.1 is that a regulation cannot conflict with a statute, and indeed, a later portion, 39 CFR 232.1(p), states "Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office? It does not appear that this would be the case.

First, as we previously examined, 18 USC 930 does not apply to a post office. Second, as we previously examined, even if 18 USC 930 DID apply to post offices, remember that 18 USC 930(d) merely states that the lawful carrying of a firearm is not prohibited by 18 USC 930(a), not that the lawful carrying of a firearm is allowed. This being the case, what is 39 CFR 232.1 in conflict with? I think it is difficult to argue it is in conflict with anything.

This being the case, at a minimum, we have a situation where there is a valid RULE prohibiting the carrying of firearms, and properly posted signs evidencing this fact.

I think that makes it pretty clear. And again I'm not trying to take credit for this research or analysis. I pulled it from this thread.

 

[CanCanCase]

I was just about to post a new thread with the "can CHL holders carry in a bank?" Glad I skimmed back a few lines on my tiny screen! ;-)

I took the polite route the other day and asked the lead teller at the Coos Bay Wells Fargo. She appreciated me asking, and appreciated me leaving it outside, then explained that their preference and policy was not inside the building (this was while she was giving me a night drop key anyway!)

I've got a call in to a slightly higher authority at Wells, as the branch manager has already told me to go right ahead as long as it's on the down-low. No posting anywhere in the place either, so I'm pretty comfortable... (Just no jokes about robbing the place, because when you're armed, you're one step closer to "armed robbery"...)

-Case

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I carry into our bank pretty much daily.