Ccw carry inside usps post office

[drinktothat421]

This flips back and forth alot. Last i was told no go on parking lot (keeping in car) and building. When in the passed i guess parking lot in car was legal.

 

[Gawernator]

This flips back and forth alot. Last i was told no go on parking lot (keeping in car) and building. When in the passed i guess parking lot in car was legal.

Members can carry on postal property.

 

[Deadcoyote]

I can’t say for sure but I imagine countless men and women all over America have carried countless numbers of concealed weapons into USPS locations on countless occasions; and no one’s feelings were ever hurt and no one ever even realized it.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Members can carry on postal property.

Odd quirk in the law, but I get it. You have to be part of the "Class" (Action) to enjoy the benefit. Over time, the rest of us ordinary citizens will also enjoy the decision's benefit.

I suspect if you aren't part of the class, and get busted being armed at/in a post office- the first thing your lawyer will point to is this class decision. Any attorneys have thoughts on how that would play out? Not so much at first, more as time goes by kinda thing?

 

[KuyaLoompia]

I spend less time inside of the post office than it would take for me to take my rig off, sooooooo…yeah.

 

[drinktothat421]

I spend less time inside of the post office than it would take for me to take my rig off, sooooooo…yeah.

It being a hassle doesnt change the legally of it. Like why get a ccw just carry right. Same goes for complant ar. Lots of good people dont comply. Still there are illegally issues

 

[Deadcoyote]

This kind of reminds me of something similar, just bear with me here:

I was once at a soccer tournament and two dads got in a verbal argument and were threatening to fight one another. Eventually one dad warns the other one that he has a concealed weapon on his person and it could escalate to a shooting. The other dad then says he has his CCW in his truck and he’s going to get it so they can have it out. Police get dispatched and both guys get detained and they were both lying neither of them had firearms on their persons or in their vehicles.

A dad from our program was saying “these nuts with concealed weapons ruined the tournament.” I thought it was funny because firstly there were no actual CCW people involved in this incident; combined with this dad had sat next to me in lawn chairs three days a week for like 8 years unaware I was one of those evil people. As it should be though right? I see this post office thing as no different really.

 

[Gawernator]

It being a hassle doesnt change the legally of it. Like why get a ccw just carry right. Same goes for complant ar. Lots of good people dont comply. Still there are illegally issues

It is now legal for us SAF members lol

 

[Hit Factor]

It being a hassle doesnt change the legally of it. Like why get a ccw just carry right. Same goes for complant ar. Lots of good people dont comply. Still there are illegally issues

Good point. Remember that time that CCW holder forgot to remove his concealed weapon before going into the post office to mail a package, and somehow the federal authorities found out about it and arrested him? Wait . . . neither do I.

 

[Gawernator]

Good point. Remember that time that CCW holder forgot to remove his concealed weapon before going in the post office to mail a package, and somehow the federal authorities found out about it and arrested him? Wait . . . neither do I.

What, your post office doesn't have armed police inspecting you for guns at every entrance? lol

 

[Hit Factor]

What, your post office doesn't have armed police inspecting you for guns at every entrance? lol

No, they’re too busy inspecting all the gang members and drug dealers for guns on every street corner in every blue city in California. Wait . . . they’re not doing that, either.

 

[five.five-six]

And if you ever had to use a gun to put an end to a mass shooting inside a postal facility, I doubt too many people would be upset that you didn’t disarm yourself in the parking lot before coming in. Most people know that the criminals and predators aren’t disarming themselves.

Not “nobody”

Never underestimate the stupidity of your opponent ~Sun Tzu

 

[NorCalBusa]

It is now legal for us SAF members lol

If you pay your dues 1 minute too late- or 6 months- is your Post Office exception cancelled?

 

[Gawernator]

If you pay your dues 1 minute too late- or 6 months- is your Post Office exception cancelled?

I’m not a lawyer but from what I read you have to be an active member

 

[Dvrjon]

Some argument can be made that the rulings of a District court affect only that district. Also, this North Texas ruling is in direct opposition to the 10 CA ruling in Bonidy (Colorado).

However, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has informed Attorney General Todd Blanche that under current law, firearms were not banned in post offices under a broad exception covering many who carry concealed.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1457751/dl

Application of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to Post Offices

Section 930(d)(3) of title 18, U.S. Code, permits the lawful carrying of constitutionall yprotected firearms in post offices that are generally open to the public.

August 12, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Congress has passed at least nine different statutes that bar or have been interpreted to bar otherwise law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons into designated locations. It has also empowered the Department of Homeland Security, 40 U.S.C. § 1315(c), as well as individual federal agencies, see, e.g., 39 U.S.C. §§ 401(2), 403(b)(3) (Postal Service), to regulate who may enter the buildings that they own and operate. Many of those agencies have opted to bar weapons from their facilities and grounds either explicitly by regulation or implicitly by closing their facilities to the public.

You have asked whether one of those restrictions, codified at 18 U.S.C.§ 930(a), is best read to impose criminal penalties on an otherwise law abiding individual who carries weapons into a post office for the purpose of self-defense. We would have significant constitutional concerns if Congress had created such a blanket ban on the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected arms into a building frequented by the public since the Founding. But we ultimately need not reach that issue here, as Congress has exempted the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." 18U.S.C. §930(d). Because carrying arms for self-defense when entering a building held open to the public is a pradigmatic "lawful purpose []" that exception permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms in post offices.

{We do not address post offices that are closed to the public or federal facilities other than post offices.}

Note that this is a legal advisement to the USAG, not a statute and not a SCOTUS ruling.
It also only addresses federal statutes constraining carry at the post office. Local laws are not affected, but if challenged, would have to defend against this position.

 

[Hindsight]

Yup. Kostas also has mentioned in the past that it’s a nationwide injunction and applies for us folks here in CA as well.

Glad to not have to disarm while going about my day and running errands that include the local post office.

 

[Dvrjon]

Yup. Kostas also has mentioned in the past that it’s a nationwide injunction and applies for us folks here in CA as well.

Glad to not have to disarm while going about my day and running errands that include the local post office.

I have not seen KM's review on this, but the SCOTUS has previously ruled that District Courts likely don't have the judicial authority to issue universal injunctions. limiting them to the jurisdiction of that court. Otherwise, the district Court ruling in Duncan would have stayed all other state's LCM statutes 9 years ago. It didn't and doesn't.

 

[Hindsight]

I have not seen KM's review on this, but the SCOTUS has previously ruled that District Courts likely don't have the judicial authority to issue universal injunctions. limiting them to the jurisdiction of that court. Otherwise, the district Court ruling in Duncan would have stayed all other state's LCM statutes 9 years ago. It didn't and doesn't.

Yah, someone asked about whether trump v CASA (I’m assuming that’s the issue regarding nationwide applicability) applied or if it applied and covered those in CA.

He didn’t go into a ton of detail, but between your own analysis and his opinion/standing within SAF seems like we’re at least covered.

 

[Gawernator]

All SAF members are covered as part of the class.

 

[CadeH]

I have not seen KM's review on this, but the SCOTUS has previously ruled that District Courts likely don't have the judicial authority to issue universal injunctions. limiting them to the jurisdiction of that court. Otherwise, the district Court ruling in Duncan would have stayed all other state's LCM statutes 9 years ago. It didn't and doesn't.

They aren't issuing universal injunctions anymore, but instead issuing injunctions that cover all members of the plaintiff organizations that sue. All members nationwide are covered but the injunctions aren't nationwide in the sense that all 340 million people in the US are protected by it.