Concealed carry in Post Offices
- Thread starter Capt. F.
- Start date
- Status
I haven't been to the USPO is at least 5 years, partly because I carry, and partly because I value my time. The last time I went, I parked next door, and left my piece in the car. I don't like doing that, but I'd like a federal felony charge even less.
Without reading the replies, the short answer is that it is impermissible to take a firearm into or onto a Federal facility. They don't need a sign. National forests are a horse of a different color, but any Federal building is automatically "NO FIREARMS PERMITTED". Don't get overheated about it; that's been the law for decades. 
Navy vet
Member
Never tried USPS. But shipped my AR back to S&W without an FFL. Apparently shipping from Owner to MFR is ok.
jkingrph
Member
Yes and it can be shipped directly back to you.
I have a federal C&R license, basically a collectors license. and have had several long guns mailed to me. The local post office actually held one for several days for me when I was out of town and said it was nothing unusual, but that's small town Texas. Late last year I ordered a small handgun from an out of state dealer and they mailed it to me, and said as a C&R license holder it was legal. With a C&R license I can order anything over 50 years old and have sent directly to my house.
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 783
- Reaction score
- 1,277
Privately owned strip mall "contract post offices" are common in my area, and although their signs say "United States Post Office" and their interiors appear to be post offices, they're actually privately owned business franchises and staffed with non postal service employees so it's perfectly legal to carry inside of them.
Good morning,There is only ONE Supreme Court case on a private person carrying gun inside a facility known as a US Post Office and it addresses the parking lot as well. It is illegal for any private person to do so as of this writing. It does not matter if there is a no gun sign or any of that. If it is a facility staffed by postal employees and has a sign that says post office, it does not matter whatsoever, whether it is a lease or owned outright by the feds, anyone that thinks so, please post your authority, because you have none.
As it stands, it is illegal for me or you or anyone without a badge to carry any gun into a post office. Read the case, it is in English and anyone can understand if they read it 3-4 times, drunk or sober, but I jest.
This is the government's brief and why they won on the issue.
View attachment 768036
And this is the parking lot that was determined to be illegal to have a gun in the truck, on postal property. A smart guy would park next door in the mud, duh.
View attachment 768038
And the ruling was: It is illegal to possess a gun in a post office parking lot or inside a post office. This is for us, it has nothing to do with postal employees or police.
Bonidy v. United States Postal Svc., No. 13-1374 (10th Cir. 2015)
Plaintiff Tab Bonidy lived in a rural area near Avon, Colorado. He was granted a concealed carry permit under Colorado law and regularly carried a handgun for self-defense. Avon’s post office did not deliver mail to residents’ homes; instead, it provided mailboxes in the post office building...law.justia.com
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court order to the extent it upheld 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) as applied to the Avon post office building. We REVERSE the district court order to the extent it found that regulation unconstitutional as applied to Bonidy’s request to be able to carry a gun in his vehicle onto the Avon post office parking lot. We REMAND for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
And that law they confirmed has dozens of restrictions about what you can and cannot do on postal property. For example, you cannot park and sell your car there. You cannot even drive into the parking lot without a valid driver's license. You cannot do your political campaigns there and so on. And the simple and relevant section is"
the same force and effect as if made a part hereof.
(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
It is pretty simple and unless there is a recent change by the Postal Service, the Congress of the Courts, it is solid law. And violations of that law is a federal crime.
It does not matter what I think or what some real estate law you may think applies, this is the only ruling that applies. As a former prosecutor, this would be an easy case to prosecute because it is a simply intent crime. All the US Attorney has to prove is that (1) you knew there was a gun in your car or on your person, and (2) you entered a place you knew was a post office or postal parking lot.
I think it is a dumb law as applied to the parking lot, but what I think is totally worthless in the eyes of the law.
title-39/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-232/section-232.1 Read the law for yourself and you will sound knowledgeable when you give opinions about it.Federal Register :: Request Access
www.ecfr.gov
Good morning, your first line is a bit misleading as the U.S. Sup. Ct. denied to hear the matter. Case was heard by a panel of three judges out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.There is only ONE Supreme Court case on a private person carrying gun inside a facility known as a US Post Office and it addresses the parking lot as well. It is illegal for any private person to do so as of this writing. It does not matter if there is a no gun sign or any of that. If it is a facility staffed by postal employees and has a sign that says post office, it does not matter whatsoever, whether it is a lease or owned outright by the feds, anyone that thinks so, please post your authority, because you have none.
As it stands, it is illegal for me or you or anyone without a badge to carry any gun into a post office. Read the case, it is in English and anyone can understand if they read it 3-4 times, drunk or sober, but I jest.
This is the government's brief and why they won on the issue.
View attachment 768036
And this is the parking lot that was determined to be illegal to have a gun in the truck, on postal property. A smart guy would park next door in the mud, duh.
View attachment 768038
And the ruling was: It is illegal to possess a gun in a post office parking lot or inside a post office. This is for us, it has nothing to do with postal employees or police.
Bonidy v. United States Postal Svc., No. 13-1374 (10th Cir. 2015)
Plaintiff Tab Bonidy lived in a rural area near Avon, Colorado. He was granted a concealed carry permit under Colorado law and regularly carried a handgun for self-defense. Avon’s post office did not deliver mail to residents’ homes; instead, it provided mailboxes in the post office building...
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court order to the extent it upheld 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) as applied to the Avon post office building. We REVERSE the district court order to the extent it found that regulation unconstitutional as applied to Bonidy’s request to be able to carry a gun in his vehicle onto the Avon post office parking lot. We REMAND for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
And that law they confirmed has dozens of restrictions about what you can and cannot do on postal property. For example, you cannot park and sell your car there. You cannot even drive into the parking lot without a valid driver's license. You cannot do your political campaigns there and so on. And the simple and relevant section is"
the same force and effect as if made a part hereof.
(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
It is pretty simple and unless there is a recent change by the Postal Service, the Congress of the Courts, it is solid law. And violations of that law is a federal crime.
It does not matter what I think or what some real estate law you may think applies, this is the only ruling that applies. As a former prosecutor, this would be an easy case to prosecute because it is a simply intent crime. All the US Attorney has to prove is that (1) you knew there was a gun in your car or on your person, and (2) you entered a place you knew was a post office or postal parking lot.
I think it is a dumb law as applied to the parking lot, but what I think is totally worthless in the eyes of the law.
title-39/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-232/section-232.1 Read the law for yourself and you will sound knowledgeable when you give opinions about it.Federal Register :: Request Access
You are correct, I worded it poorly.Good morning,
Good morning, your first line is a bit misleading as the U.S. Sup. Ct. denied to hear the matter. Case was heard by a panel of three judges out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But, that is exactly what I said above. And I posted the docket sheet from the Supreme Court where Cert was denied. And I explained that when Cert is denied, the ruling of the circuit court stands, exactly as ruled for that district, on all issues that the Circuit Court addressed.
The point is, the Sup Court looked at the issue and for whatever reasons, did not feel it important enough to address. That does not tell us what they would do if some other case with a different fact pattern might end, it just tells us they refused to address the issue.
Bonidy was a rural post office in Colorado. Not a lot of people went there. If the post office had been in downtown New York City, I suspect the rule would be the same. But all we really know is that the Supreme Court denied to look at the case like they do in about 99% of the cases presented to them. But we also know they did a cursory review of the facts, and decided it was not important enough to address.
And the issue before them would have been, "is the ban on carrying guns inside a US Post Office a violation of Mr. Bonidy's second amendment rights?"
Technically we know they did not decide, but as legal observers we know that they did not feel it important enough to answer. If you have read the long statute about what is illegal on Post Office property, such as vendors in the parking lot, political campaigns, and even bringing dogs onto the property, all such restrictions fall squarely inside traditional safety issues or valid reasons not to let you park your RV for sale in the parking lot, and so on. They are very specific regulations that apply to Post Office entities. Most are similar to federal buildings but not the same, specifically targeted to the operation of an agency that receives and distributes mail. Accepting an appeal or Cert would have opened up the entire arena of issues.
That said, most requests for Cert are denied because they can only accept so many. However, this was one of the few cases on appeal in which a person claimed his personal constitutional rights were violated. In denying cert, as a legal observer, we must conclude that allegation of constitutional violations, just did not important to them at this time.
However, keep in mind that they denied Cert on Bonidy in 2016, as I posted above and you posted again. There were lots of new Second Amendment cases coming down the pike after the Bruen case, they are not likely to deal with one small case when they have many looming major Second Amendment cases in the pipeline, such as AR bans across the nation.
Again, that is the only Supreme Court case where they did a cursory review of the issue of carry inside a Post Office, and they refused to address it, at least for now. What is accepted for Cert and what is not accepted for Cert tells us what they think is important to the nation and what they think is not. Mr. Bonidy's allegation of a constitutional violation was not important to them in March 2016. And it is a crime for him to carry in the rural post office. I deem it quite insignificant and suspect that most people who use that post office do not care, and likely carry inside without concern. Like it is our here in much of flyover country. People where I live use the post office in town. When they go there at night, the sign on the door probably does not matter, the thugs lurking in the dark, if any, do matter, and people arm themselves accordingly.
My 2 cents.
Interesting. I'm past a half century old and I've never heard of someone going into the post office to mail a letter or buy some stamps and end up in hot water for having a concealed weapon. That must be a mid west issue. Thanks for sharing.
coneologist
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2014
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 10
Living in Oklahoma I want everyone to remember "Going Postal" started after a shooting at a post office in Edmond Oklahoma. For years after the shooting I supplied bumber stickers that read, "Guns Don`t Kill People, Postal Employees Do".
OutAtTheEdge
Member
Living in the Wisconsin equivalent of Mayberry, I feel as comfortable unarmed in the local PO as I do in my own living room. Could something bad happen in the 5 minutes I'm there in the course of a year? Of course, but the probability isn't worth the (also negligible) risk of being found in possession on premises, and the potential negative effect it could have on public perception of CCW licensees. My decision, YMMV.
My experience is that the vast majority of people prosecuted for carrying a firearm illegally at the post office were robbing it . . .
Doriangray6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2025
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 361
"Long" ago I was working a construction job in Big Bend National park and the closest place to live was in Study Butte.
Back then there were about 75 people living there permanently, the post office was run by an old lady in the back of an adobe house that had been there since the place was still part of Mexico and everybody had the same mailing address, "General Delivery".
Sometimes there'd be horses tied up at the hitching post by the door and seeing a rifle in a scabbard or a holstered handgun on someone's side inside wasn't unusual. Same for rifles and shotguns in racks in pickups around town. No big deal.
This was well before Texas allowed folks to open carry but the folks in that part of West Texas didn't seem to care much about what the politicians in Austin thought or did.
Back then there were about 75 people living there permanently, the post office was run by an old lady in the back of an adobe house that had been there since the place was still part of Mexico and everybody had the same mailing address, "General Delivery".
Sometimes there'd be horses tied up at the hitching post by the door and seeing a rifle in a scabbard or a holstered handgun on someone's side inside wasn't unusual. Same for rifles and shotguns in racks in pickups around town. No big deal.
This was well before Texas allowed folks to open carry but the folks in that part of West Texas didn't seem to care much about what the politicians in Austin thought or did.
Photog
Member
Actually, you do not have to have an FFL to mail a long gun. You can take your rifle, properly packaged, down to the PO, and send it off for repair, warranty work, or even if you have sold it. FFL only required with handguns. I had my FFL from 1984 until 2019.
OutAtTheEdge
Member
True. However, I would add a couple notes for clarity. A non-FFL can, as Photog points out, ship a long gun via USPS to any FFL for repair or other service, or if it sold to the receiving FFL. Non-FFLs may also ship long guns via USPS to themselves, care of a third party; something you might wish to do if you want the gun at a final destination when you arrive, like a hunting trip or competition event. Additionally, a non-FFL may ship long guns via USPS to another non-FFL within the same state. This all comes with some specific requirements to be met, and should be researched prior to shipping.
Sal1950
Member
As long as we're splitting hairs, the red dot of my Crimson Trace gets there first.
How can one ship a long arm from a Post Office (legal) if having a gun on Post Office property is illegal?
Maybe I missed something.
kwill1911
Member
Take it in boxed up and ready to mail.
It does. At least as far as the parking lot is concerned. The way it works in Wisconsin, as explained by a lawyer, is that if the entire building is rented (staffed as well), by the USPS then it's all no firearms. Parking lot included. No signs needed.
Now, if the USPS rents a portion of a building and staffs the site, we can follow state law and have firearms in our vehicles in the parking lot. However, we cannot legally take firearms into their rented space.
As mentioned, contracted sites that simply process mail and packages for the USPS, are not federal sites in any ways shape or form. For me, on the rare occasion I need to send something, I use that rented space in my local grocery store. No breaking of laws, and no being inconvenienced going to the actual USPS facility.
It's one of the most bizarre, and odd rulings. When it was made, and was applied that one person, as an exception to the rule I didn't know what to think. I still don't.
Autonomous
Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 1,669
This thread is a good study on the peril of asking legal questions online.
- Status
Similar threads
