So you openly admit you violated federal law?
If you care to interpret it that way, I and every other LEO I knew at the time did exactly that.
My point was that we were required to carry a firearm at all times on the premise that we were never entirely "off duty". It was understood that we could at any time come upon or be called to respond to a situation that required us to be armed.
In other words, we were never entirely off duty and carrying concealed between formal shifts was still part of our *official duties*. And to my knowledge none of the officers I worked with ever had a post master or other postal employee object. That was probably because they;
- had a reasonable degree of common sense;
- understood the congressional intent of the law; and
- did not want to create a threat to law enforcement officers, understanding why law enforcement officers who were known in the community might not want to go to the post office if it was known that they would be unarmed and an easier target.
—-
But let's assume an over zealous prosecutor wants to go with your overly narrow read of the law, one that is clearly well in excess of the legislative intent.
As you no doubt are aware the average citizen not only cannot bring a handgun into the post office, they also cannot have one on postal property, so it cannot legally be left locked in the person's vehicle. Under your narrow read of the law that would also apply to police officers.
For a police officer then, this would mean they can also not leave their side arm (as well as rifle or shot gun in a weapon rack pr truncated) in their patrol car or personal vehicle depending on whether they are on or off duty.
That means they would have to leave their guns at home while going to the post office, in violation of their terms of employment and specified "off duty" responsibility to carry a sidearm as a condition of employment and an official duty.
