Posted on 10/29/2009 7:54:00 AM PDT by majstoll
...About TWENTY YEARS late, ehhh post office???
Some would go so far as to say the whole facility would be considered under the ban.
My take is that they have no say on the parking lot in that case, but would have say once you enter through the doors of the post office itself, not any outer, or neighboring store.
This one does:
§ 232.1 Conduct on postal property.
(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. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property.
Mike, ask her: “What’s the penalty for violation? How often has this occurred in the last 20 years? It the same as for having a pet in your car in the parking lot?”
>> I’d argue that it is a first step towards warrant-less searches.
I can see that happening in 10 years unless the tide changes back in favor of the Constitution.
>> I order stamps online <<
I usually buy mine at Sam’s Club. And at least some of the grocery stores carry them.
(p) Penalties and other law. ...
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. 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
Considering the erosion of the Constitution, I’d give it a lot less. Unless, like you say, we vote the bums out.
Of course.
But my point is that the vast majority of rules have no applicability to the public. Like the rules that control how patent examiners examiner patent applications, for instance.
So, how does one go about mailing a long gun at a Federal Post Office, something that is otherwise lawful, if you can’t posses the gun on Post Office property? I mean, when you think about it, a gun in a box is about as concealed as it can get. The problem is that you can transport the gun up to the boundary of the parking lot, and it’s apparently OK once the long gun is in possession of the mail clerk. So, the prohibition is in that magic little zone between those two lines. So, what’s the solution? I know! Have the postal clerk walk out to the boundary of the property and meet you there. You pay your money there and the postal clerk reaches over the parking lot boundary and takes the gun from you so that you never possess it on Post Office property. Problem solved! Yet another practical solution to one of life’s little aggravations brought to you by the Federal Government!
Thanks, I will look into both of these options.
It literally takes my whole lunch break to drive to the post office near by work (down town of a state capital city), stand in line (where there is usually only one person working the windows), and drive back. And now I am guilty of a felony if drive into their parking lot.
Gee, if everyone shunned the post offices, maybe they can lay off postal workers.
This has been partially adjudicated, at least here in Texas (5th Circuit) IIRC.
I don't think the postal service could enforce this 'regulation' in the 5th circuit.
The Court did not indicate whether the Second Amendment would protect gun owners from prosecution if they possess a gun in the public areas of USPS property. Even though USPS parking lots are often indistinguishable from other public parking lots, and are not posted to warn the public of the gun ban, USPS spokesperson Joanne Vito told the Examiner.com that 39 CFR 232.1(l)
“applies to anyone coming into a Post Office or a Postal facility. The regulation prohibiting the possession of firearms or other weapons applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service. . . . Both open and concealed possession are prohibited, so storage of a weapon on a car parked in a lot that is under the charge and control of the Postal Service would be prohibited.”
TALK ABOUT OVER-REACHING. “STROKE OF THE PEN, LAW OF THE LAND.”
I’d argue that it is a first step towards warrant-less searches. Want to mail stuff? Gotta get car searched. By the agent on duty at every post office.
Actual post office or contract location? If contract location, I’d think not. If actual post office, it still seems shaky that they’d be able to tell Walgreen’s customers who have no business with the post office what they’re allowed to have in their car when they go to the drugstore.
You also seem to be suffering from some sort of pituitary condition affecting growth of facial extremities.
Well, in Alaska that probably includes the postal employees, so it would apply to them plus, they know how well it would play to the public, so they probably just roll their eyes and ignore it.
Go ahead and tell the cops, probably. I'm sure they don't care about this stupid regulation.
It is actually a dedicated post office facility, it has its own entrance from the sidewalk and the normal signage on the doors and windows. I wouldn't think they would be able to enforce it there, but you never can tell, the law seems too vague in this case.
But that’s different. That’s one party to a business deal (employment) choosing not to renew the deal. You could quit a job because your boss is always wearing green shirts and you don’t like green, but you couldn’t report him to the cops for it. In this case they’re trying to apply it in a more criminal fashion, against people who aren’t their employees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.