Can You Carry A Gun At The Post Office? – The Legal Brief ~ VIDEO

The Gun Collective
The Gun Collective

USA – -( Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of the gun world.

I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we are talking about carrying firearms on postal property. And no, we are not discussing shipping firearms through the mail.

The topic of post offices comes up rather frequently in conversation with regard to firearms. It is a place that many of us travel to in order to send certain things and a place that some of us have to travel to in order to collect our mail since the post office does not actually deliver to all residences. For instance, Jon has a PO Box for TGC.

As we have previously discussed, federal law prohibits the possession of firearms in federal facilities. This would include post offices. I think most of you were already aware of that given the signs you usually see posted all throughout the post office. And no, it doesn’t only ban revolvers….

While this is relatively straight forward the question arises in the context of the post office parking lot.

Can you carry a firearm to the post office, park in the post office parking lot and leave your firearm in the car while you retrieve your mail or ship something? The answer which may surprise some of you, is no.

The federal regulations state “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, … either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.” In other words, a person cannot carry or store a firearm on postal property, unless it is for official purposes. I know some of you are going to say “but Adam, my car isn’t postal property.” You’re right, but it is parked on postal property and that is where the problem lies. buhdaddum

Tab Bonidy, a Coloradan who lived in a rural area, felt that such a restriction violated his Second Amendment rights and brought suit against the US Postal Service. He claimed that the restriction was unconstitutional as applied to him because it violated his Second Amendment right to bring a gun into the post office and store a gun in his car while he picked up his mail. Mr. Bonidy lived in an area where he had to retrieve his mail from the post office as they did not deliver. The District Court held that the postal regulation prohibiting Mr. Bonidy from carrying his firearm into the post office was constitutional but the prohibition on storing a firearm in his car was not.

As you may have guessed, the Government wasn’t quite happy with that outcome, so it appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the parking lot adjacent to the actual building was considered postal property and as such, the post office could prohibit firearms from being stored in a vehicle. In part, it relied on language found in Heller which stated “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions…or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” For what it is worth that particular sentence as a whole has been the subject of a lot of controversy and interpretation.

The Court offered two approaches which it could find that the prohibition was constitutional. First, it looked at the layout of the parking lot, finding that it was attached to the postal building and was for the exclusive use of it. It also noted there was a postal drop box, which meant postal transactions took place in the parking lot. As such, it found that the language quoted in Heller applied to the parking lot as well as the building. However, because the Court felt that the parking lot was a matter which was closely contested, it offered an alternative analysis.

The Court posited that the right to bear arms recognized in Heller in the home, would apply, although with less force, outside of the home. The Court stated that the Post Office acting as a proprietor (not a sovereign) has broad discretion to govern business operations according to rules it deems appropriate. It also found that the differences between the ban in Heller and McDonald were starkly different than the one in this instance. It stated “[T]he regulation challenged here applies only to discrete parcels of land owned by the U.S. Postal Service, and affects private citizens only insofar as they are doing business with the USPS on USPS property. And the regulation is directly relevant to the USPS’s business objectives, which include providing a safe environment for its patrons and employees.”

Applying an analysis, the Court determined that the regulation was sufficiently tailored to the US Postal Service’s important interest in safety. Remember, intermediate scrutiny requires that the government’s stated objective be important and there has to be a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective. In this instance, the fit between the important interest in safety and the prohibition of carrying firearms on the property. As such, it upheld the constitutionality of the regulation. I’ve included the decision in the description for your reading pleasure. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which denied certiorari. Two of the attorneys at the firm I work for drafted an Amicus Curiae Brief which was filed prior to the denial. You can find that in the description as well.

Adam Goes Postal
Can You Carry A Gun At The Post Office? – The Legal Brief ~ VIDEO

So what should you do if you have to go to the post office and you have your gun? Well, there are a few options. You could leave your gun at home, but I know that most of you won’t view that as an option and I don’t blame you. You could park in a parking lot that is not on post office property, store your firearm securely, walk to the post office, conduct your business and then return to your car. Or you could send someone else to handle your mail for you.

Hopefully that clears up some confusion that exists surrounding firearms and postal facilities. If you guys liked this episode, you know what to do, hit that like button and share it around with your friends. Be sure to check out my website Remember, if you have a question you want answered on this show, head over to The Legal Brief section on Don’t forget to like The Gun Collective on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Full 30, Snap Chat and wherever else you can catch us on social media.

And as always thanks for watching!

Links for this episode:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities :
  • 39 C.F.R. § 232.1 – Conduct on postal property :
  • Bonidy v. USPS :
  • Amicus Brief :

About The Gun Collective

The Gun Collective is dedicated to bringing you the highest quality, fast paced gun content possible. Started in June 2015 by Jon Patton, TGC has rapidly taken off to become a go-to source for the things you need to know without a bunch of BS. Please check out to learn more and see what the hype is all about!

  • 157 thoughts on “Can You Carry A Gun At The Post Office? – The Legal Brief ~ VIDEO

    1. Word has it the Senate Homeland Security committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on the USPS allowing employees to take leave to work for the killery campaign , which violates the Hatch Act. Incurring extra expense because others had to work overtime. Of course this is killery so nothing will come from it.

    2. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV however common sense dictates…
      Despite a court “OPINION” which is not the same the rendering of law.
      Only Congress can make law, and unless they have given the USPS that power in writing via a separate law, THEY HAVE NO SUCH AUHORITY, the USPS cannot make law only rules and guidelines!
      These rules and or guidelines are those of a government contractor, just as there are other government contractors they are also fee to make their own RULES and guidelines with respect to their property.
      However the USPS should be made to follow STATE rules and regulations just as the national park services have with respect to local and state gun laws.

      1. @Jim, One must follow judge made law and legislature made law, so what is the difference, you have to follow it? What is “Law”?

        1. @Jim, @Wild Bill, the problem most people don’t understand is that judges, no matter if they are municipal, district or federal, cannot legislative from the bench and must follow WRITTEN and ESTABLISHED law that is written and authorize by congress.

          One of the biggest problems we have in this nation for the past 40 years was taking our marriages / divorceed out of the criminal court arena and putting it into the civil law arena where judges spew / issue, “court orders” at the sounding of the gavel, UNLESS THESE ORDERS ARE ISSUED BY LAW CLERKS and only a judges signature is obtained when readily available and we the shape of you not understand that on it’s based these long winded, “orders” are wholy VOID as they are UNIMFORCABLE! The same as ANY, “Rule” or “Regulation”!

          In any court order if the LAW is not cited, then you cannot be found guilty or breaking any LAW that doesn’t exist!

          And in most cases for citizens not aware of these minor details or their rights under the constitution, they don’t have the werewithall to draft their briefs and fight these matters in front of a jury, which, if done properly, will entrap the judge in wrong doing as well as expose the judge for being in willfull neglect of there statutory duty as per their Oath of Office, making the only available option for the judge to recuse themselves from the matter inch postal false lunch and the boys this that these judges are matter, the jury taking charge and the case dismissed on lack of ANY LEGAL STANDING!

        2. @Wild Bill, you know that only the SCOTUS are the ONLY JUDGES allowed to, “change” law. NO JUDGE has any authority to legislate from the bench. They, (judges) MUST FOLLOW,WRITTEN LAW. If WE, The Sheeple allow a judge to legislate from the bench and we follow along then it is OUR fault!

          1. @GR, I know that even the SCOTUS can not “legislate” law. What ever “law” is. Only Congress has legislative authority. The districts and circuits make rulings that tell us what legislation means, and what agency made rules mean, and what S Ct. opinions mean, in their own circuit or district until that circuit court of appeals or that federal district court gets overturned or Congress acts. All of these agencies, courts, and legislators make rules for us to obey. They make them in different ways, but all impact us in the same way, so… I ask again which is ” law” and more properly “what is “Law”?

            1. Hi Wild Bill,
              The way I see any law ” For or Against the 2nd Amendment is breaking the Law of The Land and also against the nature of Mankind, and can NOT do any good in the end. Any Law against nature will never work and makes any attempt look pretty stupid. I agree with you “WHAT IS LAW ?”. Laws passed that take away natural requirements can really put the law maker into a very liable position legally when anyone that obeys that law suffers danger because of it, can sue those Law makers and even judges that enforce it. Anything that is against the Constitution is illegal and can easily a life and death matter.
              By the way you wanted to know what books I mentioned on the Koran, it is the Hadid of which is a whole set approximately 15 in all. Wish I could put websites on the blog but a NO NO. >>> Oldmarine

      2. Judges cannot render law, but their decisions in a perfect world would be made on the letter of law. Unfortunately all too often their OPINIONS are just that based upon personal feelings political agenda and thoughts.

        These could easily be referred as (legal term coming) Prima Vera Law.. That is a term meaning that if I say it is the law and you believe it, then it bears the weight of law. If on the other hand you call BS and put me to task to prove it by the letter of the law and I cannot then it looses its authority…

        Unfortunately when a judge such as the Obama or Clinton era appointees do such a criminal act, and yes it is contrary to law for them to do this. You have to spend a huge pule of $$$$$$$$$$ to counter their inability to do their job correctly.

        1. @Jim, Actually, judges have been in the “law” rendering/making/delivering business long before legislatures were even thought of, and still do today. Each federal judge, appellate judge, and supreme court judge makes some rule or interpretation of a rule that you will obey or suffer the consequences. Local bureaucrats district bureaucrats, regional bureaucrats, and national level bureaucrats also make rules that you will obey or suffer the consequences. If you have to obey or suffer the consequences, then isn’t that “law”?

        2. Unless you are 100% disabled and file a Pauperous Afidavit, then you have no limits on your filings as the filing fees are waived.

    3. A question to posters here, if I may. How many here spent the brief time necessary to contact their elected representatives regarding concerns here mentioned, and their ideas for fixing the problem.

      1. I do all the time and not only on this subject but a wide variety of issues, mostly abused of government power(s), veteran’s issues and in all contacts made, I always offer either solutions or pieces of the legalese puzzle that would lead to. solution(s).

    4. Your grade school English teacher will say the question is not properly written.
      The question isn’t “can I” but “may I” or really “should I.”
      Should you is the question and that is followed by will you?

    5. How about this….

      Just walk in to your USPS facility ARMED and concealed. Do your business. Walk out. No one is the wiser. That is why it is called CONCEALED carry.

      Once again “….shall not be infringed” is ignored and infringed.

      Screw “the law”.

      1. In my experience, those who say, “screw the law,” are those likely to get screwed BY the law!

        If you really want to be able to carry SAFELY in the PO, or any other Govt offices, the most appropriate response is to write your congressmen and senators and try to get them to pass a law something like the REINS Act, to remove the offending regulations. It may also help to write to the POTUS and point out that he IS the Executive Branch and all those regulations we find so onerous can be reversed with a stroke of his pen. It may also help to become a vocal advocate for doing this and make as much of a public stink as possible to draw attention to the problem and its possible solutions. It will NOT help to simply violate the law that’s in place.

        As long as the regulation remains on the books, enforceable as if it were a law, it can be used against you, and if you happen to get caught, it probably WILL BE. The federal govt has incredibly deep pockets (after all, you and I line them!), which makes it almost impossible to fight the feds effectively in court. Even if you win, they’ll certainly appeal, and then even if you win the appeals, you will be bankrupt and the govt will drag their feet on any compensation you may be due until you are dead. They can, and will, create long costly delays, anytime they think there is any chance they will lose in court.

        Saying “concealed means concealed” is also a cop out. For two reasons: one, you may be inadvertently “outed” by a wide variety of unpredictable events depending on how you conceal your firearm. Two, you are knowingly violating the law. If that doesn’t bother you any – it SHOULD. I’m well aware of all the arguments about illegal laws being null and void at their inception, so please don’t quote them to me. The fact is, you will be violating a law, and if we want to call ourselves a “law-abiding society,” or if we want concealed carry licensees to be considered “law-abiding folks,” then we should direct our behavior towards changing the bad laws, not violating them.

        1. There’s another old saying that, “When there’s 60 armed citizens standing amongst six armed police officers, the citizens make the law.”

          Review the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. The second Revolutionary War in the United States.

        2. oldshooter,

          “….write your congressman and senators and try to get them to pass a law….”


          1. Write one’s congress weasel ? I wish you were joking, but you are not.
          2. Get them to pass ANOTHER law ? Ever been in a law library ? Walls and walls and volumes and volumes of your beloved “laws”. Just what is needed, ANOTHER law. You are just another statist; a collectivist.
          3. You FEAR the US government….that is tyranny in action and you are accepting of it.

          Hahahahahahahah….write one’s congress weasel ? Don’t forget to enclose a certified check for $10,000.00. That will get the weasel’s attention. Maybe.

          “….law is often but the tyrant’s will.” – Thomas Jefferson, 3rd POTUS –

          “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so” – Thomas Jefferson, 3rd POTUS –

    6. What they don’t know, won’t hurt them !!
      It’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six !!
      That’s my viewpoint of this situation !!

      1. Do a risk analysis here Doug. Which do you think is the more probable event, that you will have to get into a potentially lethal shootout in or adjacent to, the PO, or that you will be caught carrying there and arrested for it? Both are events that will change your life for the worse, and both will have very long-term, if not permanent effects.

        1. oldshooter,

          Good Lord….you are a most cowardly Amerikan. Just stay in your abode. If not you “may”, “might”, “could”….catch a cold or worse….excercise what little Liberty remains in fUSA.

          You are truly despicable.

          1. @ DAN –
            Personally, I’m real careful about bandying the word “coward” around. You know nothing about me, my history, my beliefs, etc. except what you’ve seen here, and I rarely discuss my personal history except in relation to the topic under discussion. Your rhetoric suggests that you haven’t spent much time in any sort of actual combat. I say that because most of the combat vets I know are much less “bloody minded” in their talk, but I could be wrong, since I don’t know you either, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
            Personalities aside though, maybe you ought to look at your position, as you’ve stated it here, logically. If you truly believe what you say here, then you really have only 2 honorable choices: 1) leave the country, or , 2) start an insurrection to change the govt, by which I mean a real shooting war on your home ground. Simply deciding to disobey laws you dislike is not patriotic, it’s just criminal. I work regularly with the courts, and every criminal I’ve encountered uses an argument similar to that one. While Jefferson advocated disobedience to unconstitutional laws, he also said regular revolutions might be a good thing for liberty, and in any case, he expected that those violations of unconstitutional laws would end up in the courts, thereby bringing them to the attention of “the system,” which could then rectify the situation
            If you truly don’t think the system can work, those are really your only options, unless you abrogate what I would consider your responsibility to the country, and just become a hermit, obeying only the laws you like. If you aren’t even willing to try and work within the system to effect change, your only choices are either to leave the system altogether or else go outside the system, by doing something like starting a real war, to change things. I haven’t heard about you assassinating any of our govt leaders or other officials yet, and you don’t seem to be one of the lefty anarchists, so I assume you haven’t taken the second option. Having experienced a real war up close and personal, I’d suggest you think it over VERY carefully before endorsing one, especially here within our own country, and that’s where your stated position seems to lead. It is not cowardly, but rather reasonable, to believe that open combat should be the last option considered, after all others have been tried and found wanting. You may remember that is how the founding Fathers approached their war of secession with England. They were hardly cowards, but they first tried long and hard to negotiate with the King, in fact, Ben Franklin spent several years in England trying to do that before we actually went to war. Even then, it was the British Army that initiated open warfare, not the Founders.
            What exactly, do you think is an appropriate response for a non-cowardly American? Flouting our laws? Do you see any possible way that we could return to honoring and following the Constitution, if we all decide to disobey any laws with which we disagree, without even trying to change them first? It is simply not the case that anyone who is reluctant to disobey the law is a coward. Probably quite the opposite, in fact.

            1. oldcoward and/or oldstatist,

              So, you’re an old, retired badged thug are you ? Your lengthy diatribe reminds me of the extensive pages of bullsh*t opinions the members of the judiciary often write justifying their wrongful legal opinions.

              Yes, I consider your words here as descriptive of one who is cowardly in the extreme. Methinks you have hidden your entire life behind the cloak of government as one of the many scoundrels who are part of that criminal enterprise. Your extreme advocating of following the “law” is that of a blind fool.

              As you tend to ignore that written which you don’t like, I’ll repeat my remarks of earlier:

              1. “….law is often but the tyrant’s will.”
              2. “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is OBLIGATED to do so.” (emphasis mine)

              As you know and as you care to ignore, quotes 1 & 2 above are from Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States. If Mr. Jefferson ever told his countrymen to “write your congressman and senators and get them to change the law” it would be in contradiction to his quoted remarks as posted above.

              I spent YEARS of my life and a vast sum of money fighting a government entity who blatantly ignored those precious laws you hold so dear. When I challenged them, under the law, they used an armed, badged thug to remove me from their presence. After filing a federal lawsuit at MY expense and time I had my day in court. The jury ruled FOR ME ! The presiding judge threw out the jury verdict. Just threw it out like the jury did not matter. And they didn’t. The jury was nullified by the black-robed bastard. So much for your beloved laws.

              Every day in my automotive travels I see countless drivers violating the speed limits, your beloved “law”. Not one soul, except myself, is driving the posted speed limit. You think maybe they are saying “screw the law” ? How dare they !

              So, true to your collectivist mentality you tell me to “love it or leave it”. Or your other ridiculous notion to “start a war”. Well, I’m all ears….advise me where to start as you seem to have the answers to everything. Although, the fact of the matter is it truly is time to clean out the local, state and federal governments of the millions of scum who have become the served rather than the servants. There will be only one way to do that. It won’t be by writing, begging, imploring government scum to respect the citizenry. It will require bloodshed on a massive scale.

              Yes, I consider you a coward and a statist. Your extensive writings here have been proof positive to me, that you are most certainly one of the sheeple.

            2. @Dan III, Take it easy. There are plenty of leftists, socialist, and elitists that deserve this kind of insult. The older gentlemen that come to this site do not. What you write says a lot about you, but proves noting about your subject.

            3. Wild Bill @ 2025, 13 JUL,

              Your “older gentlemen” are quite adept at their efforts to manipulate us untermenschen. Try to refrain from supporting such.

              BTW, thank you for your ridicule. Rule #5, courtesy of Saul Alinsky. Correct ?

            4. @Dan III What ridicule? Nothing that I have written in responding to you has been meant to be ridicule. It is too bad that you can’t turn your vitriol in a direction that deserves it.

          2. DAN,
            It is a sad thing to see a person who can only define himself and his life in terms of a lost lawsuit. You may well have been wronged, but you seem to have allowed this event to color the rest of your life – indeed, you seem to let it define you.
            I gave you a polite way out with my comment earlier that I’d give you the benefit of the doubt because I don’t know you. You seem to have been too angry or stupid to take it, and still think I am a statist, “badged thug,” and coward. Here’s some relevant personal data about myself:
            I have never worn a badge, but I’m a Viet Nam veteran who has put my life on the line, not only for my country and my teammates, but for innocent Vietnamese as well. In my day, I have served as a volunteer wildland firefighter, member of a search and rescue team, have worked with Habitat for Humanity (as a volunteer gofer), have worked on a Christian suicide crisis line (although I’m not a Christian), have taught kids to shoot, have taught statistics and personal development at the college level (and tutored grade school kids in reading and math), have trained Indian Tribal staff in professional skills (at my own expense and while on vacation, when I happened to learn they had all the instruments but no training in them), I have worked with veterans with PTSD, served on legal defense teams as an expert witness, have helped organize a local TEA Party group (in which I’m still active), and have volunteered my help in numerous other local civic actions, including disaster relief efforts. In my professional capacity, I routinely work with people with physical and mental disabilities, evaluating, counseling, and helping them find employment, and until very recently, worked with our local special courts for substance abusers and for veterans. I am an NRA life member, and have been a nationally ranked competitive shooter. I am a member of Oathkeepers, and while technically a member of the “Constitution Party,” I am a strong Libertarian (hardly a “Statist”), and my personal belief is that Honor, Duty, and Altruism, in that order,are the highest virtues any man, but especially any American, can aspire to. I have made a life for myself that is defined primarily by helping others, at every level of society from my country to my next-door neighbor, even when it is to my own detriment. I’ve paid my dues, and continue to do so even in my 70s.
            What have you done for anyone other than yourself? You call ME a coward – when did you put YOUR life on the line for others?

            1. oldcoward/oldstatist,

              First off, you are FAR from being a Libertarian. Far from it. You are without a doubt, a statist, a collectivist.

              “Sad” ? You are also far from “sad”. Please. Spare me anymore or your self-righteousness. You think mighty highly of yourself. Your alleged time in Vietnam should not be listed as a badge of honor. For all I know you were an E-3 clerk working in one of the S-4 warehouses at Danang. Instead you want to use the unnecessary deaths of 58,000+ men and untold hundreds of thousands wounded to justify your belief that I am just some pogue who has the audacity to challenge your despicable, statist self. Rather you should be ashamed of your involvement, even as an E-3 clerk, in just one of the 20+ wars of imperialism this country has engaged in since 1947. 58,000 men killed and hundreds of thousands wounded, most drafted, fought in a war against a nation that never attacked us. And to what end ? Our textile industry gone and today communist Vietnam makes the underwear you most likely wear.

              My lost lawsuit at the hands of a corrupt, federal judiciary DOES define my hatred for what this country’s government has become. I have spent a countless amount of my time attempting to correct the tyranny of government. I have done as you all-knowingly advised others to do, i.e., write to, beg, cajole, plead with my elected, federal elites to embrace Freedom and change tyranneous law. To what avail ? An effing form letter returned to me written by some starry-eyed, unpaid intern, signed with a rubber stamped signature of the weasel I had written to.

              Those written and wasted efforts culminated in my disgust at the corruption of a county government, having never been challenged by citizens to cease their actions of theft. I finally did what others would not, taking legal action against them. Only to have my jury win nullified by the corruption of a federal judge(s). Damn right I am bitter. Everything I ever believed this country to have been was destroyed by that loss civil suit. Then the subsequent eight years of the annointment of soetoro-obama, the Taqiyya-practicing moslem to be POTUS, cemented my hatred for what this government has become.

              Yet you would have me shrug my shoulders, “oh well, win some, lose some” and go merrily on my way embracing the very corruption I fought against. That same corruption you cherish under the guise of “law”. Certainly that mentality works for you. Not for me.

              Since it appears from your listing of all your alleged, righteous activities, that no one person can hold a candle to you, I will continue to find you a know-it-all who believes he is above scrutiny and better than anyone else. You are not. You warmly embrace a belief that the political elites, both elected and anointed, can dictate how citizens live their lives. You defend the scum of government and their tyranny. In the course of our communicating you conveniently ignore the historically recorded warnings I presented you, of one of the most enlightened of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson. You live with caution daily, afraid in a cowardly sense, not to ruffle the feathers of the almighty scum of “government”. You advise others to do the same. I do NOT accept such attitude as you possess.

              As you want to challenge me, anonymously, to compare myself to you in a dick-measuring contest, I will not. For one, I could never measure up to you as no one person is as wonderful as you. No matter what I told you here anonymously, it doesn’t mean an effing thing. What I do believe and will remark here, is that citizens possessing your beliefs in the tyranny of unchecked and ever accumulating “law”, are assuredly enemies of what remains of the Republic.

              While you want to bloviate about the “lawlessness” of us who stand against laws of tyranny, laws used to attack and restrain the common man and not applied to the elites, and wrenching your elbow from patting yourself on the back while you’re at it, you appear to be quite accepting of the hijra into fUSA, of impovershed, moslem scum introduced and orchestrated by soetoro-obama. There is where your concern should be addressed. Not arguing your cowardice in succumbing to the tyranny of the traitors to Freedom & Liberty, buried in the bowels of the Deep State like the rats they are.

              For me, those of your government-sucking mentality are disease lapping at what little Liberty remains in this once, great nation. I consider you not only despicable, but pitiful as well.

            2. Well DAN, you are proving my earlier point. I wasn’t looking for a “Holier than thou peeing contest” but I see from your response, that you can’t seem to do anything but try to denigrate others, from the country to individuals like myself. And since you can’t seem to even imagine or admit, that there may be others more honorable and less embittered than yourself, it seems unlikely that you will change.
              I’m not the one bloviating here, YOU are. You consider our wars “imperialist,” yet obviously don’t understand the meaning of the term (for example, which colonies do we have after those “imperialist” wars? Was WWII imperialist, even though we rebuilt and gave back all the territory we occupied? If Vietnam was an imperialist war, why didn’t we take over and occupy Vietnam the way the French had? THEY were an imperialist power.
              Ah well, it is obviously not going to be a productive conversation. I guess I’ll leave you to stew in your own bitter juices then.

            3. oldcoward/oldstatist,

              “….one of the 20+ wars of imperialism this country has engaged in since 1947.”

              There you go know-it-all. There’s an extract from my last reply to you. Yet, you have the audacity to try to frame my remarks outside the scope of what I actually stated.

              Again, in effort to justify yourself you question me on the sanctity of American involvement in “The Good War”. You dare ask me if our WW2 involvement was imperialism, per my “+20 wars of imperialism since 1947” remark. “Since 1947” doesn’t fit your meme so you back up six years to 1941. How Alinsky of you.

              Then, in keeping with your know-it-all attitude you tell me I don’t know the definition of “imperialism”. Fine. You keep using YOUR dictionary. I’ll use mine

              You remark that we gave back all the territory we occupied after WW2. Really ? You mean the occupation of both Germany and Japan where we are STILL there with massive military presence. Seventy-two years since the end of WW2 and Amerika is STILL occupying the lands of the defeated. Hell, lets not forget Korea. Korea where we embroiled ourselves unnecessarily more than 60 years ago and we STILL are THERE occupying THAT peninsula. In the meantime your beloved fedgov now proudly buys, drives and emblazons Korean-built cars with GSA license plates. How truly “Amerikan” of the scum of government. But, I digress.

              Today, this former USA is in it’s death throes. Many folks are plain tired of the tyranny of the Deep State that has controlled fUSA for decades. That is why we elected Donald John Trump as POTUS. It is apparent to us that the scoundrels of the Deep State are trying hard to maintain their agenda. The attacks against 45 by the media, the members of his own party and the intelligentia is proof positive of the oligarchy the Republic has become. However, you most certainly support such attacks on the duly elected POTUS, seeing how you fellate those black-robed bastards who administer your beloved “laws” and have compromised the authority of POTUS Trump.

              I’ve wasted enough time and bandwidth on you. I’ve commented sufficiently to challenge your inane thought process. BTW, you may want to put an ice pack on that elbow you most likely injured. You know, from patting yourself on the back.

              Now go back to reading YOUR dictionary and YOUR history books.

              “+20 wars of imperialism since 1947.”

              “….law is often but the tyrant’s will.” – Thomas Jefferson, 3d POTUS

          3. @danIII, I think you should stop and consider the comments by the “older gentlemen” on this subject as being constructive rather than regressive. As an example I could say if you stick your hand into a buzz saw to stop it, what do you think will happen? It is very clear that the saw will cut your hand off. Taking on the government as you post would be the same type of punishment. You may not get your hand cut off but it sure will hurt your pocketbook.
            We are all to blame because we have allowed the government to get too powerful and overpower us. We need to concentrate on voting and insisting our representatives due right by us. In other words hold their feet to the fire. That is the only possible way to win.
            My brother-in-law, an attorney once told me to avoid court if at all possible because there is no way to predict what the judge may do. Sad situation.
            We should be able to carry in the post office just in case an employee decides to “go postal”

    7. Video said prohibition applied to property “owned” by PO/Federal Govt..

      Many PO are in leased property/buildings.

      Any clarification?

      1. From what I’ve seen here, it appears that the post office, via regulatory authority, which seems little understood, can do most any damned bit of foolishness it’s little hearts desire. Of course, such postal authority antics might well serve to drive ever more customers to other suppliers of similar, possibly better, more efficient services, a possibility that the post office, being s government entity cares naught about, it appears. Given that postal authorities appear to have powers, but lack responsibility, we have the mess that we have. Funny thing is the following. Criminals aren’t much bothered by or concerned with law and regulations, postal or otherwise. The law abiding will comply, however while some, perhaps many thereof might be armed, they bother nobody.

      2. The courts have repeatedly held that the person or agency leasing a property, including the federal govt, can impose their own regulations on behavior on the leased property as if they were the owners, so long as those regulations are otherwise within the law, and do not conflict with their leasing contract with the actual owners.

        1. What one CAN do, and what is the SMART thing to do are often markedly different, a basic premise that seemingly escapes some people, notwithstanding the sometimes maudlin ramblings of our courts.

    8. A few years ago when I applied for Social Security I was surprises to see armed guards at the only public enterence with a table and sign that read no weapons of ANY kind.
      I asked about pocket knife and was told :nothing.”
      So I went back out to the car and left my gun, knives, spare ammo and pocket change.
      I wonder why the SS offices are more fearful than the other government offices?

      1. Jim Macklin:

        I could be wrong, but I suspect what you reference is simply more bureaucratic bullshit. when I filed for Social Security, I saw no guards, armed or otherwise, though Pittsburgh PA. Might be more peaceful than your location, who knows.

      2. I live in San Antonio, TX. When I went to the SS branch Office to sign up for Medicare back in 2013, they had an armed guard but no metal detectors, etc. When I went there two years ago to straighten out paperwork, they had 3 armed guards and metal detectors, and I had to go through a procedure similar to the airport (although I didn’t have to take off my shoes). As an aside, I asked the armed guard back in 2013, how often he went shooting. He said he just qualifies annually. I practice weekly, and my standard course of fire for practice is much more difficult than his annual qualifying requirements. I asked him how he’d handle a situation in the crowded waiting room (about 300 folks all sitting close together right inside the doors) if an “active shooter” scenario occurred. He asked me if I was threatening him – I pointed out that I was just asking how he’d handle it since it looked impossibly dangerous to me. Needless to say, he never addressed my question, but with his skill level, he certainly could not have been expected to respond effectively to such a scenario.

      1. You mean about airline pilots guarding the mail?
        Laws don’t stop crime, they define crime and prescribe punishment.

        Criminals don’t care about the law and they don’t expect to be caught. Honest people are raised to behave honorably. Children are taught to be nice, to share toys, not steal and certainly to not hurt their friends.

        Criminals learn slightly different rules to live by.

    9. What makes a Post Office mightier than Fed Ex or UPS. They both offer exactly the same services. Nothing more and nothing less. They deliver mail and packages. Why would the Post Office be in danger more than the other places that offer the same services. Also, this ruling would mean that you could never ship a gun through the Postal Service as you need to take it into the building to send it out. You would be in possession when entering the building. Is that illegal also?

    10. If all ccw/gun owners would boycot anti gun establishments , ie. Electronic email , don’t buy stamps, movie stars. I think they would re visit their anti gun stance!

      1. I have stopped using the USPS for everything, I get all my bills electronically. I send all my packages and mail via UPS or FedEx. I’m not going to disarm just to retrieve my mail or to ship a package.

    11. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED trumps all the PO BS. I carry all the time into the PO and darn, never a body has died in my presence. SCREW them. I decide. Not some fool “law.”

    12. Perhaps I’m thick headed, but viewing the back and forth on this topic I find myself curious re the following. I’m a law abiding citizen licensed by my state of residence to carry concealed forearms. Additionally, my state of residence states in it’s statute law,that open carry of a firearm without any sort of permit is allowed. I enter a post office facility for some lawful purpose, having secured my pistol in my vehicle, parked off site of the post office, in accordance with what appear to be regulatory law. While in the postal facility,I attacked by another person, suffering injury. The post office, via it’s regulations, having rendered me disarmed, defenseless or with seriously reduced options is perhaps saddened at my injuries. Is the post office or postal service, an entity of government, responsible, subject to claims for damages I suffered, having complied with their expressed desires, their regulations of however one might describe their dictum? As I recall, there is an old dictum that runs to the following effect. One Cannot Have One’s Cake, Having Eaten It. Does the post office have special dispensation? If so, by virtue of who or what?

        1. Bill,

          Correct. USPS has no duty to protect citizen customers. But what they HAVE done through their diktats/regulations is DENY, through threats of prosecution, fines and Club Fed time, those same citizen customers their right to protect and defend themselves.

          USPS, in the scenario presented, is culpable.

            1. And the law allows the p.o. to get away with this sort of crap. Anyone ever wonder at the diminished degree of respect for the law displayed ever more often.

    13. HankB

      Sounds like you might be on the verge, or perhaps past that point, of speaking in favor of what has been otherwise been described as Jury Nullification, long may it wave.

    14. Disregarding for a moment (not really) that ALL gunlaws are offensive to the restrictions placed upon government by the Second Amendment, PLEASE explain how (d)(3) DOES NOT APPLY?

      (d) 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.

      How is this not applicable?

      Section 930:

      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.

      1. The argument has been made before that, under subsection d.3, “self-defense” is a “lawful purpose” for carrying a firearm, thus, if a concealed carry licensee carries on the PO property s/he should theoretically be fine. Of course, this would probably have to be decided in a federal court and you are taking your liberty in your hands and offering it up to the federal (IN)justice system if you try to test it. Remember what happened to the Bundy Ranch and Malheur Refuge folks when THEY tried to stand up for their rights against the feds. As for the folks who say “concealed means CONCEALED, so how would anyone know you are carrying?” I’d just point out that lots of unforeseen things can happen that would “out” you in any place where you carry. I was in my local library last year when I ran into an old neighbor who gave me a hug upon meeting me. She felt my quite well concealed .45 on my hip (carried at 5 o’clock IWB holster) and said, loudly and in a surprised voice, “What is THAT? Are you carrying a GUN?” WHAMO-outed! Several folks looked up (she was loud and libraries are usually pretty quiet), but I was legal so it wasn’t any legal problem. What if that had happened in the USPO, on camera? Potentially a whole ‘nother ball game there. What if the elderly lady next to you in line drops her packages or falls down, and you bend over to help her? Will your concealed pistol show? Unforeseen events like this are actually far more likely to occur than any kind of “active shooter” scenario when yo are at the post office, so, in theory, you’d be safer leaving your gun in the car, and parking it on the street, and off the USPO property. On the other hand, my solution, like at least one other poster here, has been simply not to do business with the USPS anymore. I haven’t been inside a USPO in about 15 years now, and find that I can get along just fine with UPS and FedEx when I need to mail packages or do the kind of things I used to go to the PO for. Maybe that’s one reason the PO is going broke.

        1. oldshooter,

          “Remember what happened to the Bundy Ranch and Malheur Refuge folks when THEY tried to stand up for their rights against the feds.”

          You may want to read the successes of those Patriots at Oathkeepers.99th

          You would be surprised at what some backbone, knowledge of their rights and standing their ground in “the system” provided them.

        2. oldshooter,

          Just stay in your abode. Insure you lock all the windows and doors.

          “Despicable”. Your cowardly advice is indicative of what many Amerikans have chosen to do….bend over and grab one’s ankles.

      2. Going to a public area of a Post Office to buy a stamp or collect mail from a Post Office Box or get mail from General Delivery at the counter IS a lawful purpose.
        Years ago the heavy leather mail bags carried by the postman as he delivered the mail contained a holster that fit a Colt or S&WV 1917 revolver. No postal worker “went postal” until after the Postmaster General under LBJ imposed his anti-gun ideas. That rule change also resulted in te Post Office dropping the requirement that Airline Pilots carry a gun to protect the mail carried on the plane. Airline highjackings started only after the PO chenged the rules.

          1. @OV, I would not test the reg with my freedom and treasure at stake against any federal agency or quasi-agency in a federal court.
            @Greg R, Federal agencies with the “authority” to make regulations with the force and effect of law have only existed since FDR talked Congress into it. Congress loves it because they never get the blame. The president loves it because he just tells the agencies the regulation that he wants and how it will read and orders it done, without the consent of Congress. The federal agencies and quasi-agencies love it because they develop huge fiefdoms of power, huge budgets, many employees (some trigger pullers), and can engage in social engineering all on their own according to their own beliefs.
            It is not Constitutional and the only losers are We the People.

            1. Bill,

              “….not Constitutional….”

              Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5….”a natural born citizen”. So much for that as the usurping scoundrel soetoro-obama, was pushed by the Marxist media and supported by the fed courts and CON-gress, in violation of the nearly worthless U.S. CON-stitution.

              Amendment 2, The right to Keep and Bear Arms. 2A….compromised, ridiculed and violated hundreds of thousands of times by the courts, the Alphabet agencies, the CON-gress and numerous POTUS’s.

              Above are two examples. 1A, Free speech, is another Freedom pretty much in the toilet by the fedgov scum folks like to call “government”.

              Bill, the CON-stitution was still birthed. It is a joke, a ruse. It protects not one, solitary citizen from our betters in the fed/state/local governments.

              It is long dead.

            2. @Dan III The Constitution worked while they followed it. I presume by “still birthed” you mean the Supreme Court creating for itself the power of judicial review of Congressional Acts in Marbury. Yes, the S Ct. justices were the first to subvert the Constitution, but no one subverted the Constitution like FDR.
              FDR talked Congress into giving away its exclusive authority legislate to agencies. And now, Congress loves it. The people get regulated out of their Constitutional rights. Congress is never the villain. And Congress can spend their time raise in election funds (i.e. selling influence).

        1. The issue is not whether you are at the PO for a “lawful purpose,” but whether you are carrying a gun “for a lawful purpose.” In any case, as I said earlier, it is YOUR freedom you are risking if you decide to challenge the federal govt on this issue. You might want to keep in mind that two past IRS Commissioners have publicly stated that the Income Tax is a voluntary tax, that no one is legally required to pay, yet there are many in prison today, or destitute after being fined, because they didn’t pay it. When a jury found the Waco Branch Davidians innocent of murder or conspiracy to commit murder, the judge, after conferring with the federal prosecutor, simply redefined their findings and sent about a dozen innocent folks to prison anyway. If you aren’t following the Bundy Ranch and Malheur Refuge guys trial, you might want to start. All the evidence available to the public now, suggests that they are also being railroaded by the federal govt. So, as I said, you can try to use the “lawful purpose” defense, but it’s YOUR freedom you are risking if you do.

          1. oldcoward, errrr oldshooter,

            “….it is your freedom you are risking if you decide to challenge the federal govt….”.

            Do you read what you write oldcoward ? What “Freedom” is it one risks when one fears to exercise that Freedom ? Truly, one has NO Freedom when they fear to exercise such because they fear the scum one calls “the federal government”.

            Were this 1775 it appears to me you would be branded a Tory, a Loyalist, and rightfully so.

            Your expressions of fear and cowardice are truly, truly despicable.

            1. @DAN III, I have to give you a, “Job well done!” as I believe you have worked to lose the respect of practically everyone if not everyone in this forum.

              THIS TO I would blame on that mean ole federal judge that sunk your case.

              It’s obvious that your trial experiences wore,you down both monitarily as well as mentally, but do you actually believe that you and only you put up The Good Fight?
              Remember, YOU CHOSE THAT BATTLE, not us! Not OldShooter, Wild Bill and as much as,it itches my ass to say it, neither did “GIL”!

              Do some,soul searching, lick your wounds and get back in the game or you’re going to die one bitter, lonely old fart.

              You don’t seem like a guy that is afraid of the courts, more though of the sting of legal battle.

              Turn your loss around!

              Step back, re-align your focus and at least use your knowledge and experience, to aid and assist others from falling to the same demise.

              And possibly consider asking those on this forum to forgive you for your most (obviously) painful outbursts.

              Semper Fidelis.

            2. Romeu,

              I lost “respect” of you and ” and practically everyone….in this forum” ? How so ? Did you take a secret poll I am not aware of ? Because I don’t worship at the altar of laws and regulations created by the ruling elites to control the masses, I should succumb to your criticisms ?

              While you throw out your scattergun criticism of my remarks, you offer no specifics to your disrespect. Although, not that it matters.

              If you want to enter this fray than challenge my remarks with specifics. Your pooh-poohing of my federal court case, by a judge who practiced his own form of jury nullification, is indicative of the “bend over and grab your ankles mentality” that pervades the bulk of Caucasian, conservative Amerika today.

              My 1st Amendment case and the overturning of the jury verdict, has had ramifications far and wide across this fUSA. It has been used in more than one 1st Amendment challenge by defendent government entities justifying their actions to quash Free Speech rights of the people.

              Oh, and ask you to FORGIVE ME for my “painful outbursts ? Hahahahahaha….you should go into comedy ! Rather, I believe that you and others should be thanking me for the challenges I offered the foolish and ankle-grabbing remarks spouted by various authors here; one commenter in particular.

              So, while you join in on this thread of a federal agency attacking citizen’s rights enumerated in the 2d Amendment, you’ll gladly chastise my Free Speech remarks made at this forum. How contradictory of you. You are no better than the unelected bureaucrats of fedgov who attack, what little remains, our Freedom every day. Hell, wouldn’t surprise me in tthe least if you are sucking at the .gov trough yourself

              Seeing how you like to dispense advise, here is my advise to you:

              If you don’t like what I’ve written, DON’T READ IT ! Simple, eh ?

            3. @Dan III, Greg R is right. You are so insulting that it is impossible to have respect for you. Your pronouncements, often correct, are so bitter, and ranting that you are difficult to read. You even insult people that agree with you.
              Sorry that your case went south on appeal. There must have been something there or you would not have won at trial, but only one appellate judge screwed you. Not any one other person in government, or on this forum, or anywhere else in America.

            4. Wild Bill @ 1015,

              I am insulting ? Because I challenge folks for with remarks they rightly deserve ?

              It has always amazed me how you anonymous folks take umbrage at remarks made by other anonymous pogues, like myself. Folks such as yourself describing your hurt feelings because you take remarks personally is unfathomable to me. You act as though I just physically spit in your eye and by name specific, called your wife a dirty whore !

              My remarks against some of the big government advocating folks here are certainly intentional. When folks like your anonymous pal oldshooter advocate for more adherence to the walls and walls and walls of laws, laws written to control the masses, he and others with similar advocations are most deserving of any insults I throw his and their way.

              Just today ANOTHER black-robed b*stard in Hawaii issued another ruling attacking President Trump’s executive order curtailing the admission of foreigners, non-citizens into this country. So, your remarks about how just one fed judge screwed me and then indicating they’re not all bad, is in my opinion, totally off the mark. The concentrated attacks by the Deep State are going to come to a boiling point in fUSA. When folks such as yourself support the Freedom-denying antics of judicial activists as in the minority, as just so much “doing business”, I find it cause for alarm.

              Too bad you have such thin skin as to take umbrage at my remarks. But, I have long-tired of the propaganda spewed by anonymous Internet folks, advocating the continuous anal incursions perpetrated on ALL Americans by the fedgov scoundrels. In particular the judiciary. And certainly fedgov won’t even give us the courtesy of a reach-around.

              Continue if you must, to disrespect my insults to the many anony,ous collectivists and statists who make their remarks here and across the nation. Just be aware….you are just another anonymous critter in the vast world of electronic commentary. I won’t lose any sleep over your being distraught that I peed in the Wheaties of on of your fellow, anonymous snivelers.

              If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it. Simple.

    15. Seems to me that Any firearms case would require the strictness possible scrutiny, as NOTHING LESS IS ADEQUATE re the issue or issues involved, postal matters being no exception.

    16. Adam, please talk about section h of 18 U.S.C. § 930. My post office does not have anything posted so I assume I can carry.

      (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.

    17. There is a larger issue in play. There is no LAW prohibiting carry on USPS property, only departmental REGULATIONS. However, those regulations are enforced with the force of law. This really should be addressed with a law requiring that any departmental regulation that infringes on citizens rights must be done with an actual LAW, something similar to the REINS Act. The Postmaster General should be able to forbid his employees from carrying if he wants, and punish infringements by docking psy, etc. up to firing them. But he should have NO effective power to infringe civil rights of members if the public, especially since he is an unelected member of the Executive Branch. He has usurped this power, and this needs to be stopped.

      1. BATFE and all the other Federal agencies, including the Forest Service and BLM do the same thing. It’s called administrative law as opposed to Legislative Law. A Federal agency proposes a regulation, publishes it in the Federal Register for a period of time (anywhere from 30 to 90 days), solicits comments from the public (which they ignore) and then it become a Federal Regulation with the authority of law. It is as unconstitutional as anything that has ever existed. If some 2-bit Federal bureaucrat wants to stop you and me from buying a certain type of ammo (5.45 X 39) because his wife pissed him off and he wants to take it out on someone (too pw to face up to her), this is how he does it, and presto, you can no longer buy that ammo, if you do you go to jail and/or pay a fine. Same thing if some green weenie in the USFS decides you can’t wear your boots in the National Forest because they damage the trails. Ala Kazam, you get caught walking in YOUR National Forest in those boots and you get a huge fine. It is the ultimate usurpation of the Constitution and abuse of your rights as a US citizen.

        1. If I were ever on a Federal jury, I would NOT convict anyone of violating a REGULATION . . . I would only – ONLY! – consider convicting someone of violating the exact terms of an actual law that was explicitly voted on & passed by Congress in its entirety, signed by the President, and allowed to stand by SCOTUS. And even then, only if it was written in a form intelligible to John Q. Public; dense legalese intelligible only to lawyers and judges can’t possibly apply to anyone OTHER than lawyers and judges, IMHO. And text generated solely by unelected bureaucrats? Uh-uh.

          1. WOW! That’s a great idea, and one well worthy of mentioning to the FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) guys, for publication in their newsletter and on their website. Are you a member?

            1. The name of the organization you mentioned is not familiar to me. By the way, while I served on a trial jury once, in an armed robbery case, I was never on a trial jury where Second Amendment Rights were concerned. Serving on a trial jury in such a case might well prove more than a little interesting, given my understanding of the amendment’s, clear to me, meaning. Given my leaning, I might well be excused from serving, depending on questions posed by counselor prosecution. The thing could be quite interesting, especially the nature of jury discussions.

        2. @Joe, You say, and I quote, “… it become a Federal Regulation with the authority of law. It is as unconstitutional as anything that has ever existed.” Brother, I want to shake your hand and buy you a beer. You are on time and on target! If you keep preaching what you have written here, I think that we have a chance!

      2. Is there a LAW that allows REGULATIONS to be established by government entities and such REGULATIONS ARE GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW?

        1. You could always go to the Black’s Law Dictionary and look at the definition of Regulation versus law but I think Webster’s would pretty much do the same hence that’s why they have two different words with two different meanings.

        2. @BJI, Yes, there are many. You have to look to the enabling act by which Congrress created each individual federal agency. Those enabling acts do not, however, make Congress’s giving away their legislative authority constitutional.

          1. Bill,


            My 1st Amendment rights were violated by local government. I filed a fedgov lawsuit. After close to 3 years of legal antics and tens of thousands of MY dollars, I had my 2 days in court. The civil trial jury ruled unanimously in my favor. I won. Or so I thought. The localgov appealed. The black-robed fedgov bastard, on appeal, ruled for the government. He THREW OUT my win for Freedom and your beloved CON-stitution. My 18-month long appeal in more time and money, to 3rd Circuit, was for naught. The circuit panel ruled 2-1(2 Dems vs 1 Republican) in support of the government.

            Please. Spare me your misplaced love for the joke and the lie known as “the Constitution”. I talked the talk. I walked the walk. I learned the hard way. The CON-stitution if effing DEAD.

            1. @Dan III, I too sued government. My reverse discrimination case was successful. It took ten years and almost three months. The federal judge bent over backwards to explain to the federal agency what they had done wrong, in a thirty-four page decision. The agency appealed. The federal appellate judge, bitch slapped the agency in a one page decision telling the federal agency that they were wrong, and dismissed the appeal with prejudice.
              I am sorry that your case did not go well on appeal. There must have been something to it if you won at the trial level.

            2. Been there, done that Brother! You are spot on. I wished I had the time and place to spill the tale over a good beer and a great steak. It would heat the beer and ruin the steak. They do what they want to get what they want, to Hell with the rest of us. Please see my other two comments.

    18. Lawyers and those in Black robes on benches are the real criminals!

      The whole sorry lot have destroyed the Constitution with their fine print, and they’re truly evil case law!

      What lawyers and judges are doing with their fine print, and their shyster wording, is to precipitate a civil war.

      Lawyers and judges of the bane of civilized Humanity.

      1. Well on, many times judges prohibit the mentioning of jury nullification to juries, for the exact reasons that the whole of the legal system greatly fears an informed and well read electorate. Exactly what our Founders were versus what the government run educational system has turned us into today, TV Police shows included. I did jury duty once on a self defense/second degree murder case(I really don’t have time to get into all the details), but I was stunned and saddened at the utter ignorance of both God’s Laws and man’s that my fellow jurors exhibited. I also wished I had been more educated about disparity of force laws and rulings, which I later found out the prosecution and judge forbid to be told to the jury in pre-trial hearings. One thing I have learned, court cases are argued and decided long before those big wooden doors swing and that gavel falls. More citizen jurors should know about THAT! Nullification is the LAST thing their system wants more people to know about.

        1. My personal belief is that, if evidence is presented to the judge in the absence of the jury, or if the jury is denied access to any evidence, (and they are aware that has happened), they should automatically vote to acquit, on the basis of the fact that they have not seen/heard all the evidence, and therefore have doubts about the defendant’s guilt. If you are interested in the area of jury nullification, google “FILA/AJI” which is the “Fully Informed Jury Association/American Jury Institute.” The AJI presents legal continuing education seminars to lawyers and publishes a journal, while the FIJA guys publish a brief newsletter for ordinary laymen, and advocate for laws requiring the judge to properly inform the jury in any trial of their right to rule on the LAW as well as the facts in the specific case being heard. This is the concept of jury nullification in action. It only takes one informed juror to “hang” a jury in cases where (s)he considers the law to be wrong, or in which his/her conscience dictates acquittal rather than conviction. This has come up in cases where someone with a few ounces of marijuana is facing a 20 year prison term (pretty excessive punishment for the offense), or in which a defendant may have technically violated the law, but was morally justified in his action (like the Bernard Goetz subway shooting in NYC years ago). The concept of jury nullification has stood the test of time, and virtually no competent jurist disputes this. It is just, as you pointed out, that judges usually refuse to advise the jury of their actual rights and responsibilities – indeed, they often lie about it, telling the jury they are somehow obligated to obey the judge’s instructions – they are not. The function of the judge is simply to referee the presentation of the opposing sides of the case, by the prosecutor and defense, and to advise the jury on exactly what the law says. The case is actually TRIED by the jury, who have the ultimate power in the courtroom – they just don’t know it. If you were on a jury and had a question that no one had asked, did you know you can (and should) send a note tot the judge asking him to pose the question for you? If the judge refuses, or says the question is irrelevant, you will be faced with the issue of “reasonable doubt.” If you, as a juror, still have questions that bear on how you would vote, it is your right (and arguably even your obligation) to vote for acquittal on the basis that you still have reasonable doubt about how you should vote (not necessarily just about the technical facts of whether or not the defendant is guilty). The judge will often say that your question doesn’t bear on the facts of the case. For example, you may want to ask about the defendant’s state of mind at the time, although the law may not consider that factor. If YOU think that is an important factor, then you should consider it, and if the court refuses to address it, they may be creating doubt in your mind about how you should vote. Remember, you are NEVER just voting on the technical aspects of the law alone. If that’s what we wanted, we’d choose jurors from among lawyers and legal scholars, not ordinary citizens. We have a right to a trial by a jury solely in order to give the community a say in the law. When juries started refusing to convict folks of marijuana violations because the penalties were ridiculously high, DAs and others responded by getting the penalties lowered to the point that juries would start convicting again. This is exactly how it is all supposed to work. Your ONLY opportunity, as an ordinary citizen, to change bad laws, is to refuse to convict people of violating them, whether or not they technically did so. If you want to learn more about this, google the FIJA/AJI website.

        2. Porkchop,

          What good is a jury in a federal, civil trial if the presiding judge can overule, negate, dismiss the jury verdict ? Why even have a jury trial ?

          My 1st Amendment lawsuit never stood a chance when at the opening sidebar between the fed scum judge and the two attorneys, told my attorney “You have a weak case.” Yeah, so “weak” the jury ruled against the government, but never fear….the judge practiced his own brand of “jury nullification.

          You are correct….the trial is decided long before the opening gavel falls. Needless to say, I no longer trust government at any level and the scum who work for those governments.

      2. I can’t find any way to get email to you so trying this way Shepherd Scopes
        Find a law that THEY broke or put people in danger and then CHARGE and SUE them personally…. make them stand in court as a defendant and explain their actions to a jury. Fight Fire with Fire. Use Their weapon against them “THE LAW” . Go after them personally like they came after you. >>>> Oldmarine

    19. This is all mute because any Law against the Constitution is illegal and can be defeated in court and there are other legal criminal Laws that can be enforced against this illegal Law.

      1. Charges against the Government for not upholding the 2nd Amendment rights.
      2. Reckless endangerment of customers.
      3.. Denial of Protection from criminal activity.
      4 .If any criminal occurrences happen then the Post Office could be charged with aiding and abetting in a crime.
      5. Violating a person’s Constitutional Rights.

      Remember that any law MUST adhere to the Constitution or it is an Illegal law and politicians that passed it can be held responsible for breaking your constitutional rights. This can include Criminal charges and Civil action.
      >>> Oldmarine ……… If you think otherwise then you are a victim.

      1. Well, we are ALL victims of our government already. The simple fact is that there is a YUGE gap between “is illegal,” and “can be defeated in court,” and that gap has left thousands of innocent victims in prison. The PO is a federal government agency, hence they cannot be prosecuted without their own permission, which certainly will not be given. Those who have already tried to use 2nd Amendment rights to refute this “administrative law” so far, have all failed, and most went to prison for trying it. The best bet is either refuse to use the PO at all, or else get folks like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to propose legislation that would do away with such fundamentally illegal, “administrative laws.”

      2. @Ed Hines, I think that you mean moot, not “mute”. You say, “…any Law against the Constitution is illegal and can be defeated in court …” I say 10 million dollars will get you there, but one branch of the government may likely support the others. Your 1-4 are not even worth addressing barracks lawyer.

      3. Jim S,

        “….write President Trump.” ?

        Why ?

        You live in freakin’ Kaleeforneeya, the sanctuary state for illega and foreign invaders. A state with the most laws ever created usurping the US CON-stitution. You need to worry about your own backyard first. You can start with those two pieces of excrement, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome. Until then, don’t concern yourself with POTUS Trump.

        Need I state more ?

      4. Ed Hines,

        “….can be defeated in court.”

        Hahahahahahaha !

        Have at it money bags. Initiate a fedgov lawsuit against fedgov violating your CON-stitutional “rights”.

        You bloviating blowhards crack me up !


          1. TomR,

            I suggest you try to hook up with Eddie there. The two of you can pool your resources and challenge the denial of Freedom by USPS in federal court.

            Thanks for your imaginative and trolling remark. Next time offer an argument of substance.

        1. You sound like a panty waist that can’t fight any thing but yourself… kind of makes you immaterial ????? you need an attitude correction,

      5. Marbury v. Madison, 1805, is the precedent and authority on those very points you state, more people need to study and memorize that one ruling, it either re-enforces or blows apart all subsequent rulings. Period. It’s a rigged system against us all, has been for far too long. For most people it also falls into the NEM Theory of actual living and fighting for true justice.
        While enriching themselves they have broken and impoverished too many of the rest of us and they meant it that way. The “Law” no longer cares about right, wrong, good, bad, truth, justice or HONOR. It’s about power and money. Who has it, who wants it and what each is willing to do to get or keep it. It’s a game to them, it’s real life to people like us.. Please see my above previous comment. Good day, sir.

    20. As a Texas LTC Instructor, I must teach the correct aspects of the law – including the prohibition on postal property. Personally, I do not wish to take the risk (although slight) of violating Federal Law. So, I have begun to use private postal centers – including UPS and FedEx for any postal transactions. Most handle postal matters, as well as their own shipping transactions.
      Can’t remember the last time I set foot on the PO’s hallowed ground.
      Capt Sam

    21. The risk of trouble for carrying into the Post Office is minimal. First ,you’d have to get made…. concealed IS concealed, so how ya gonna do dat? Second, it would have to be some sort of FEDERAL level law enforcer to be there and deal with it. That is a federal offense, not local. So no city or county cop can bust you. Nor can they legally hold you till the Feds show up, as you have committed no crime over which they have jurisdiction. Remember, the Feds got all over Arizona when state government tried enforcing FEDERAL immigration laws…. we can’t be having that, now, can we?

      SO.. walk on in and act like nothing is wrong…. cause nothing IS wrong.

      1. So what would you do if a local cop were present, noticed you carrying in violation of the posted signage, and said he was arresting you? He’d promptly handcuff you and they’d call in the federal postal Inspector, who would then take charge of you. What would you do? At the very least, this would cost you a fortune in legal fees. I don’t think it’s worth the, minimal risk. There is nothing the PO provides that I have to have, and if they are going to deny me my rights, I’ll avoid them like I do any other “posted” property – and I’ll happily see them go broke and the Hell with them!

        1. oldshooter,

          “….if a cop were present.”

          If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

          Cease with the hypothetics. Just understand that as an Amerikan citizen or illegal invader, you live in an oligarchy and treasonous government of citizen scoundrels. Do what yoh want. But cease justifying your sheeple mentality with hypothesis.

    22. The same dumb ass laws apply to Social Security and the VA. If you’re in their lot you’re breaking the law! Knives are also forbidden in the VA and Social Security. MY opinion is don’t advertise the fact if you leave it in your car.

    23. I believe every case of Postal shooting was done by postal workers themselves . So why deny the rest of the public their 2nd Amendment rights? Sounds like the Post Office has internal problems not caused by the armed public.. Besides, who’s gonna know if I park there for 3 min to retrieve a letter from my PO box and I have a gun in my trunk? Do they patrol the parking lot with gun sniffing dogs??

      1. Because they can. Their actions or edicts need not make sense, which as you noted, they don’t. Old saying explaining the forgoing follows. Room For Abuse Is Always The Largest Room In The Hotel.

        1. oldshooter,

          “….if a cop were present.”

          If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

          Cease with the hypothetics. Just understand that as an Amerikan citizen or illegal invader, you live in an oligarchy and treasonous government of citizen scoundrels. Do what yoh want. But cease justifying your sheeple mentality with hypothesis.

    24. Everyone who reads this should take a moment and write President Trump and your Republican senator (Im screwed there as Feinstein is my senator – blah). Its good to vent but we must then do something. We must be heard.
      Write and say this is a ridiculous law. Be polite and respectful so they bother to count it.

      1. Jim S,

        “….write President Trump.” ?

        Why ?

        You live in freakin’ Kaleeforneeya, the sanctuary state for illega and foreign invaders. A state with the most laws ever created usurping the US CON-stitution. You need to worry about your own backyard first. You can start with those two pieces of excrement, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsome. Until then, don’t concern yourself with POTUS Trump.

        Need I state more ?

    25. So what a USPS facility that is leased and located in a strip mall with a parking lot by the post office and other businesses? Still seems vague as it seems that if you use any mail box and are carrying you could be in violation. Just apply the 2nd Amendment which is clear and concise.

    26. Fred762: You got it right, Fred, but YOU don’t get to pick what’s constitutional. So it comes down to the preferences and ideology of the judge.

      1. @SteveK, Actually one does get to pick what is constitutional… at first. And it does come down to the preferences and ideology of the judge… who is second guessing you.

        1. That judge can be charged for breaking the Law and a Federal suit filed against them.
          Judges of all kinds must obey the law no matter what .

          1. By and large, Judges CAN’T just be charged with breaking the law – they generally have to be impeached to remove them from the bench. That is a much more difficult proposition, and highly politicized In my experience, most of the judges I’ve met tended to be very arrogant folks, who thought they knew better than John Q citizen, and wanted to “maintain control of THEIR court,” even if they had questions about the case.
            Back in the early ’90s I was an expert witness for the defense in a rape trial of a former Navy SEAL. There was NO question that he was innocent. We had a tape recording (a fellow SpecOps type wore a wire and got a confession on tape by the guy who set the event up as a blackmail attempt), there were only 2 witnesses for the prosecution, a nurse who testified under oath that bruises do not change color over time(??!), and the alleged victim, a known stripper, hooker, and crackhead, who perjured herself repeatedly, 29 times to my certain knowledge – she was caught doing it in my presence (before the DA invoked “the rule” and had me removed from the courtroom until I testified). The jury was deadlocked 10-2 for acquittal, and broke the deadlock by illegally meeting in separate groups, and illegally making a deal that the 10 would go along with conviction if the other 2 would agree to a minimal sentence of 6 months probation. The jurors were, in fact, so upset, that instead of following the Bailiff out of the courtroom at the end of the trial, 7 of them stopped at the defense table and said this was all a mistake, and wanted to know how they could rectify it. There was a special hearing the next day, at which 6 of the 12 testified under oath, that they had committed jury misconduct, a felony. The case was so bad it actually made it onto Johnny Cochran’s Court TV show. The judge, refused to admit exculpatory evidence, refused to instruct the jurors of their duty to vote their conscience/belief, and even tried to “hurry them up” by having the Bailiff tell them the A/C was broken, and leaving them in a very hot (it was 104 degrees outside) room to deliberate (my wife and I personally heard him so instruct the Bailiff when he forgot to cover the microphone with his hand). The defense attorney, unbeknownst to us at the time, was an active applicant under consideration for an ADA position, which she received after the trial was over (can you say “conflict of interest?”) and the judge and DA knew this. The judge refused to declare a mistrial. And this was a judge who was considered to be “good, fair, one of the best on the bench!” Earlier, while he was out on bail awaiting his trial, a female friend of the alleged victim accused this former SEAL of driving back and forth in front of her house to “terrorize” her, and described his car in detail. It was quickly pointed out that his car was in the police impound lot at the time this allegedly occurred. The judge, a different one from the actual trial, allowed as how the SEAL was certainly innocent of the alleged offense, but then required him to spend several hundred dollars to get an ankle monitor anyway.
            So, Oldmarine, I think your faith in the “justice system” in our country today is sadly misplaced, and I personally wouldn’t trust it at all. The best bet is always to avoid any entanglement with the legal system, because it doesn’t work for you as an average citizen.

          2. Oldmarine,

            “charged” ?

            “….lawsuit filed” ?

            By whom ? Your statements are idiotic. It COSTS MONEY and time to do what you advocate. Why haven’t YOU and the other CON-stitutionists filed a suit yourself in fedgov court ?

            Yeah. That is what I thought. Blustering and bloviating. IOW….bullcrap !

          3. OldMarine, the problem is that, We, The People, have not applied scrutiny and maintenance over these corrupt officials or bother to REMOVE THEM from the bench BEFORE they cause any harm to us.

            Until WE vigilantly work to maintain our elected and appointed officials, we are subject to their corruption.

            1. @GR, While I agree with your sentiment, I note that We the People do not have the tools to remove judges from their life appointments to the bench. There is no consequence if these judges get “it” wrong, so what do they care? They are free to social engineer us according to their own theories and preferences.

    27. Good laws should be obeyed, bad laws should not. The reality is that no one who is legally carrying a hand gun is going to do anything other than possibly leave it in the car when they go into the Post Office and the majority of people, especially in rural areas, aren’t even going to bother to do that. Who is going to know? Is there a Post Office parking lot inspector? Hell, the USPS can’t even handle processing the mail in an efficient manner, why would anyone imagine they could enforce a prohibition on guns in private vehicles on USPS Property?

    28. You stated “property owned by the Postal Service” does this extend absolutely to property leased by the Postal Service? I assume it does since many facilities are such.

      1. a lease is a form of ownership, but with limited time and usage. Thus, a leaseholder in most cases has the same rights and priviedges as an outright owner. So, not a iikely defense.

    29. Has anybody figured out how an FFL dealer can legally mail a gun (PS Form 1508 – to another dealer, etc …), without taking it onto the post office property?

      Tossing it out of the car, while driving by would probably not be a good idea.

        1. OldVet….. USPS can legally handle firearms… long guns anyone can mail, and handguns only FFL can mail and then only to anoher FFL.

          UPS and FedEx both will carry handguns, but for some insane reason they INSIST they be shipped ONLY via Priority Overnight… at about eighty bux the pop, instead of fifteen for the Mdeium Flat Rate Box optioin available to FFL’s but NOT we peons.

          As to HOW one can legally SHIP a firearm through the Postal Service and still comply with the gun prohibition on USPS property….. well, the only explanation I can come up with is “its government”.

          1. I remember hearing (second or third hand) about Chicago-area FFLs who, 3 or 4 decades ago, allegedly used to ship “handguns” to each other with a bright red “FIREARM” label on the package via USPS – except the “handgun” packages contained scrap and were heavily insured. MANY did not make it through Chicago’s central post office without disappearing . . . but the USPS quietly paid the insurance fees without question, as they did not want to admit to a massive level of postal worker thievery. Profit!

            1. @HankB That would have been my guess to explain Priority Overnight. Rush it thru reduce chance of package growing legs and wandering off.

      1. @Michael it seems gil or one of the other moderators did not like my answer to you and totally deleted it.
        So here it is again… FedEx and UPS are private not USPS carriers. Have had no problems with either.

    30. Been carrying concealed in post offices and banks for years. That’s the whole purpose of carrying CONCEALED.

      1. I, likewise, have done the same for years. However, it is not illegal to carry a firearm into a bank unless it is so posted. A bank is a private entity, not federal.

        1. If you DO carry into a bank in Montana, make certain you dn’t get “made”… for some reason banks are “speshull” places in that state, and its illegal to carry in them.
          SOme states outlaw carry in church.

          Most states that allow private property owners to ban firearms also prescribe precisely HOW and WHERE proper notice must be posted to be binding. Know those rules. My state does that, and when I see the stupid “buy at the business supply house” signs I know I can walk right on in, as the signes are not per state specs, and not properly placed. Thus they are meaningless. In most such states, getting “made” can only result in your being asked to remove the weapon from their premises…. YOU can return without it. Refusal CAN result in a criminal tresspass charge. Best is to get your business done and leave before the cops come and arrest you, if it somes to that.
          Walk on in like you’re not up to anything nefarious, no one will notice unless you do something pretty stupid. Or, a robber comes in with HIS gun (which the signs did not keep out, either) and you are then forced to make the decision as to whether to hide and cower, or do the right thing.

          1. @tionoco love your comments. Keep them coming. I am a pastor in Tennessee and I carry when I preach concealed of course. My congregation knows this and a big percentage of our members carry concealed also. It is Tennessee but we are a 501c 3 with the understanding that our pulpit will declare very strongly what we believe and how and who to vote for according to the best we can with biblical principles. This limits many candidates unfortunately but my main point being we will not be told by the fed to be quiet or not carry. The very limited benefits that the 501c3 gives us will not dictate for us. If they try we will stop being 501c3. We have been given our rights by God not the govt. Thank God our constitution has recognized our God given rights such as speech and self defense just to name two. Part of the problem is our politicians think they or our govt or even our constitution gives us these rights. Let’s get the order right. You guys on Ammoland are very sharp and I am one pistol Packin preacher who thanks God for your service to our country and for your patriotism and wisdom. Again, keep it up brothers

    31. That’s funny, I am not confused at all as to whether I am going to carry a gun into the Post Office. The things people worry about.

    32. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly states that the “RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. There4, banning guns on USPS property is unconstitutional.

        1. All of you folks planning to carry concealed at the USPS or any other federal building need to be very, very careful. Being caught with a firearm will lead to a world of hurt. There are cameras all over the place, inside and out, so even if you don’t think there are any witnesses you could be on film. There are also peepholes that the Postal Inspectors use to gather evidence. With the proposed reductions to the federal workforce being discussed there are a lot of managers desperately trying to find any way they can to justify their continued employment. If they catch you they will make a federal case out of it and tie up your time and money for years.

            1. Laugh if you like but if you are found to be in violation of any so-called “rules” they can and will make your life a living hell. My friends and I have been through it. It ain’t pretty.

            2. What part of CONCEALED don’t you understand? P.S. The USPS works for ME; not the other way around.

      1. Fred762,

        “….banning guns on USPS property is unconstitutional.”

        Really ? So what ?

        Other than your tough guy remarks here, what are you prepared to do to challenge the USPS and fedgov to their unCONstitutional diktats ? Yeah. That is what I thought. Nothing.

        Put your money and time where your mouth (keyboard) is.

      2. Fred762,


        Are you living in effing La-La Land ? Tell your bull to the people of the nation’s capitol, Washington District of Columbia about “shall not be infringed”. Then after that, tell those in New York, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, every school zone in Amerika, and other venues across the fruited plain that their alleged “right” to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.

        Wake up and smell the treachery and treason perpetrated upon Freedom and Liberty by your friends, family and neighbors, in what one calls “government”.

        1. As I have frequently lamented to many around in conversations, people talk about all the “rights” they have, I say to them “You don’t have any more “rights” than the government is willing to let you have at any point in time, providing you are paying your taxes or not causing them a problem. Stop doing one or start doing the other, you’ll find out exactly how many “rights” you really have.”

          1. Porkchop,

            Some folks, many actually, refuse to awaken to the oligarchy, the tyranny exercised by the scum one calls “government”.

            Don’t give up trying to inform the sheeple. As you can read, many of them are commenting here.

    Leave a Comment 157 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *