Loaded rifle cased in back seat legal????

[Nwcid]

good question.i would say there is a stipulation to that such as enter the post office without the gun,talk to the post master about what you have and explain what you want to do(ship weapon)you may need to remove the bolt or slide?allow post master to tell you how to bring weapon in so there is no threat?who knows but the law is directed towards carrying a loaded weapon in a post office as an open carry or concealed carry,if your shipping it it is a different scenerio all together.
all i know is oregon does not allow concealed carry into any federal building (social security office,police station or post office or any other federal establishment)

You are doing a good job of debating with your feelings and thoughts. But feelings and thought are not PROOF and hold no weight. I know what the laws say but people learn a lot more when you look up what the ACTUALLY say for yourself...........

 

[doubletap007]

You are doing a good job of debating with your feelings and thoughts. But feelings and thought are not PROOF and hold no weight. I know what the laws say but people learn a lot more when you look up what the ACTUALLY say for yourself...........

and you my friend are good at shooting from the hip yourself but since i did read and posted the actual laws but it still does not cover
the question at hand really thouroughly,therefor you have to use common sense and cover your own a.. by just using your head and
ask the post master what you should do.do you need a written law to know how to wipe your butt right?or do you just figure it out as a child?geeze some people just love to argue about stupid stuff,i guess your that 1percent huh?
i was just trying to give a guy that had no answers something to work with,im not a lawer you obviously are not either so atleast he has a better idea of what he needs to do now,i was just trying to help a guy with as much as i could not get into a debate with a guy across state lines.again i would always think with anything if you dont know the law the cover your butt and just unload the rifle.thats pretty simple unless of course your the guy who wants to push his rights with the law which it sounds like you may be that 1 percent too?

 

[mjbskwim]

What law does the sign quote and what is the WHOLE law? If it is illegal to have firearms in there how can you ship them.........

I was going to take a pic of it too. But it says "carry" so I am ASSuming it means "on your person" not "transport in a box"
Where can a guy find a link to that?

 

[Nwcid]

and you my friend are good at shooting from the hip yourself but since i did read and posted the actual laws but it still does not cover
the question at hand really thouroughly,therefor you have to use common sense and cover your own a.. by just using your head and
ask the post master what you should do.do you need a written law to know how to wipe your butt right?or do you just figure it out as a child?geeze some people just love to argue about stupid stuff,i guess your that 1percent huh?
i was just trying to give a guy that had no answers something to work with,im not a lawer you obviously are not either so atleast he has a better idea of what he needs to do now,i was just trying to help a guy with as much as i could not get into a debate with a guy across state lines.again i would always think with anything if you dont know the law the cover your butt and just unload the rifle.thats pretty simple unless of course your the guy who wants to push his rights with the law which it sounds like you may be that 1 percent too?

I am just trying to put the facts out there which is why I include linked facts and the actual law with my debates.

There is legal and there is illegal. There is NO almost legal and almost illegal. I am not "pushing" my "rights", I am using them and not breaking them. Real easy example is speed. The law says 55mph do you drive 50 so you are not "pushing" the law? 55 mph is legal, 56 mph is not legal in a 55 mph zone, there is no almost legal/illegal there. This is true for any law.

 

[mjbskwim]

good question.i would say there is a stipulation to that such as enter the post office without the gun,talk to the post master about what you have and explain what you want to do(ship weapon)you may need to remove the bolt or slide?allow post master to tell you how to bring weapon in so there is no threat?who knows but the law is directed towards carrying a loaded weapon in a post office as an open carry or concealed carry,if your shipping it it is a different scenerio all together.
all i know is oregon does not allow concealed carry into any federal building (social security office,police station or post office or any other federal establishment)

It isn't Oregon making the decision of carrying in federal buildings,it would be the Feds doing that.

But I'm agreeing that "carrying" and "shipping" are two different scenarios.
Kinda obvious there no?

 

[mjbskwim]

when will folks learn. " concealed handgun licence" chl. not concealed cannon, sword, bazooka, F18, etc. It is not legal.

First part is right ,second is wrong

 

[Nwcid]

I was going to take a pic of it too. But it says "carry" so I am ASSuming it means "on your person" not "transport in a box"
Where can a guy find a link to that?

Just as an example on school zones it say something to the effect of "no guns allowed" and the has the RCW listed under it and does not post the whole law. You have to read the whole law to find out what it actually says.

Here is a PO sign and it does NOT say carry vs boxed........

Here is a link to the law it references, 18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities Some how they left section c and d off, section d3 is very interesting................

 

[mjbskwim]

Just found it too
And thanks for questioning all this so we actually find the links!!!


Question about concealed carry in a Post Office | Robert Louis Williamson's Weblog

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

The statute in questions is 18 U.S.C. 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal Facilities.

(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.

However, if we look further down to the exceptions under (d), we find:

(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.


And the whole article from Rob the Lawyer...criminal defense blog (the link at the top)

Recently I've been asked about carrying a firearm into a Post Office. Most people think this is illegal because most Postal facilities have a "No Guns Allowed" sign on the front entrance. I did some research on this, and found that it is in fact, NOT illegal to carry a firearm into a Post Office as long as certain conditions are met.

The statute in questions is 18 U.S.C. 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal Facilities.

(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.

However, if we look further down to the exceptions under (d), we find:

(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.

As you can see in (d)(3), it is lawful to carry a firearm into a Federal facility incident to hunting or "other lawful purposes." Just what are "other lawful purposes" though? If you carry a gun into a Federal facility with the intent to commit a crime therein, then it would seem pretty obvious that you are not engaged in "lawful purposes." However, if you carry a concealed weapon, with a valid concealed weapons permit, and you are not intending to commit any crimes therein, you should be well within the meaning of "lawful purposes."

This does not mean that you won't be harassed or even arrested for carrying a concealed weapon or other dangerous weapon in a Post Office. We often tell people that law enforcement can do anything they want until you can have a Judge tell them they can't. Some law enforcement officers do not know the full scope of where citizens can legally carry firearms, and thus it leaves room for error.

This "lawful purpose" exception does not apply to Federal Court facilities though and you are prohibited from carrying there, even with a valid permit.

18 U.S.C. 930(g)(3) – The term "Federal court facility" means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
Advertisement

 

[Nwcid]

None of my comments were attacks on people. Just trying to make people think and look things up not just go on what they heard or think they heard one time.

Just like in my job when dealing with people that I want to do something. I give them the options I want and lead them down the path I want or think is best by giving them the information I want them to have (like a "no gun sign"). Most of the time that works very well as they are either ignorant or over look all their options. If I were to give them all the options (like reading the full law) they may choose one of those.

So always be aware of all your options and know where to find them. I have the link to my state laws bookmarked where they are very easy to find.


As to the post office laws they are a mess. Do a search and you will see man valid arguments for both sides but I have not seen one where a court has upheld one side or the other.

Concealed means concealed.........

 

[Misterbill]

In Washington you cannot drive with a a loaded long-gun in a vehicle. This includes having a loaded magazine inserted in the weapon but no round in the chamber. (You can have loaded magazines in the car, just not inserted).

IMNSHO driving with a long-gun with a round in the chamber is frankly unsafe and a good way to have a ND if you have an accident.

 

[hermannr]

If you read the whole 39 CFR 232 (Postal Regs) you will find that to exclude firearms from a postal facility, they MUST post the no firearms sign. Interestingly, no PO near where I live is posted???

 

[greydog111]

First part is right ,second is wrong

let me define. it is not legal to use the chl to cover anything but a handgun. sorry for the foggy reply.

 

[ejmpnu92]

Not to get off topic, but the issue of the post office came up. There has now been ruling (in the following link) that upholds the post offices right, as the property owner to prohibit firearms on its property, ie in the buildings and in the parking lots.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf

In the initial court proceeding, the court ruled that it did not need signs to be up in order for the parking lot(property) to be firearm free.

Here is the link to the original Dorosan court brief:
http://volokh.com/files/dorosan.pdf

Here is a case being brought in Colorado to fight the postal ban:
Lawsuit Filed Against Post Office Gun Ban

If one looks hard enough(not that hard) these court cases will come up in an internet search. There are several other cases but the Dorosan is the most prominant. Not saying I agree the postal ban, because I don't, but there is court precedence already, now.

 

[MikeSettles]

1. RCW says that there are several exceptions to the prohibition to carry on school property, including: LEO can carry in a K-12 school; military while in performance of their duties (think MPs); and CPL holders while picking up/dropping off students.

"RCW 9.41.280
Possessing dangerous weapons on school facilities — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

(a) Any firearm;

....

(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) Any student or employee of a private military academy when on the property of the academy;
(b) Any person engaged in military, law enforcement, or school district security activities. However, a person who is not a commissioned law enforcement officer and who provides school security services under the direction of a school administrator may not possess a device listed in subsection (1)(f) of this section unless he or she has successfully completed training in the use of such devices that is equivalent to the training received by commissioned law enforcement officers;
(c) Any person who is involved in a convention, showing, demonstration, lecture, or firearms safety course authorized by school authorities in which the firearms of collectors or instructors are handled or displayed;
(d) Any person while the person is participating in a firearms or air gun competition approved by the school or school district;
(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;
(f) Any nonstudent at least eighteen years of age legally in possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon that is secured within an attended vehicle or concealed from view within a locked unattended vehicle while conducting legitimate business at the school;
(g) Any nonstudent at least eighteen years of age who is in lawful possession of an unloaded firearm, secured in a vehicle while conducting legitimate business at the school; or
(h) Any law enforcement officer of the federal, state, or local government agency.
----------------------------------------------

2. IF I remember correctly, the 1000' school exclusion zone was a Brady Law provision, which was thrown out by the federal courts.

----------------------------------------------
3. A US Post Office, being a Federal Facility, you CAN carry there, but most postal employees don't know it. Check out paragraph 3d below (self-defense being considered a "lawful purpose")(note that they must post paragraphs a and b, but not the exceptions paragraph):

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(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.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(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.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term ``Federal facility'' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term ``dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches in length.
(3) The term ``Federal court facility'' means the courtroom, judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(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.

(Added Pub. L. 100-690, title VI, Sec. 6215(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101-647, title XXII, Sec. 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 103-322, title VI, Sec. 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec. 603(t), (u), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 107-56, title VIII, Sec. 811(b), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 381.)

Amendments

2001--Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107-56 struck out ``or attempts to kill'' after ``A person who kills'', inserted ``or attempts or conspires to do
such an act,'' before ``shall be punished'', and substituted ``1113, and 1117'' for ``and 1113''.
1996--Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(t), substituted ``subsection (d)'' for ``subsection (c)''. Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(u)(1), redesignated subsec.
(g), related to posting notice in Federal facilities, as (h).
Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(u)(2), substituted ``(e)'' for ``(d)'' wherever appearing.
Pub. L. 104-294, Sec. 603(u)(1), redesignated subsec. (g), related to posting notice in Federal facilities, as (h).
1994--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 60014(2), substituted
``(d)'' for ``(c)''.
Subsecs. (c) to (g). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 60014(1), (3), added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsecs. (c) to (f) as (d) to (g), respectively.
1990--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(1), inserted ``(other than a Federal court facility)'' after ``Federal facility''.
Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(2), (3), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (e). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (f).
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(2), redesignated subsec. (e) as (f). Former subsec. (f) redesignated (g).
Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(4), added par. (3).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(5), inserted ``and notice of subsection (d) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance
to each Federal court facility,'' after ``each Federal facility,'', ``or (d)'' before ``with respect to'', and ``or (d), as the case may be'' before the period.
Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 2205(a)(2), redesignated subsec. (f) as (g).


Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Section 2205(b) of Pub. L. 101-647 provided that: ``The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to conduct
engaged in after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 29, 1990].''

 

[Nwcid]

It simply comes down to this. IF it is actually illegal to have firearms on PO ground HOW can they legally be shipped? The guns HAVE to be on PO grounds for them to be shipped........ The PO can not make up random rules. They too have to follow the laws.

According to the case that was upheld in the link in the post it would make even shipping guns illegal.........

 

[ejmpnu92]

And I agree with you, that is one of the great inconsistencies of the rulings.

They don't specifically state, if it is packed up to be shipped, then it is ok.

Too much grey area.

 

[mjbskwim]

It simply comes down to this. IF it is actually illegal to have firearms on PO ground HOW can they legally be shipped? The guns HAVE to be on PO grounds for them to be shipped........ The PO can not make up random rules. They too have to follow the laws.

According to the case that was upheld in the link in the post it would make even shipping guns illegal.........

OK OK OK now I see were you were coming from with this

Sec. 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(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

Doesn't really differentiate between "carry " and anything like I was talking of earlier.

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

So yeah,shipping a gun is a "lawful purpose " just like checking your mail,or coming to work at the post office is.

Hmmmmm,maybe someone should tell them about this.

 

[Nwcid]

OK OK OK now I see were you were coming from with this



Doesn't really differentiate between "carry " and anything like I was talking of earlier.



So yeah,shipping a gun is a "lawful purpose " just like checking your mail,or coming to work at the post office is.

Hmmmmm,maybe someone should tell them about this.

Now you are on the same page

They dont say anything if you are paying them to ship your gun but if you walk in with one then they say it is illegal. Yet the law does not not any kind of difference.... Either it is illegal or not cant be both depending on their feelings.

 

[MikeSettles]

To reiterate: The law (as I pasted in above) only requires them to post the sections a and b of the law, NOT section d, the exceptions. Unless you look it up (maybe the judge didn't, or there was no appeal), you wouldn't know about the exceptions, just based on posted signage.

Cheers!

 

[MikeSettles]

I reviewed the Dorosan case (links in a post above), and it was not a simple "carrying in a post office" situation: The guy was an employee who left an unsecured pistol with ammo in a bag in the employees-only area of the facility. This is more a case of "employer doesn't allow employees to be armed", and "stupid left a pistol where anyone could find it" if they looked in his bag. He wasn't even in the facility when someone asked the question "whose bag is this?" When confronted (and arrested), he claimed "2nd Amendment".

The judge however, in his opinion discusses (Title 18) Sec. 930. "Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities" prohibitions in paragraph 1 but fails to mention the exceptions in paragraph 3d. He also talks about some other Postal Regulation which seems to prohibit arms specifically in a post office. Also, the judge seems to think that the postal service can treat a PO as their property (rather than a federal facility).