Federal porperty so not much to say.

So it is literally posted, right? I mean are there signs up at every entrance, or is any plot of land the Feds own automatically a no carry zone and we are just supposed to sense that?

Do not remember the exact wording but it said federal property firearms were illegal.

Signs do not have to be up at every entrance. I know the main gate is posted and if you go in to the place there is signs around the grounds.

Well that's good to know. My brother and father are burried there. And their grave is very near a secondary entrance, so I never go in the main entrance.

Are there any other "surprise" patches of federal land that one should be aware of in the area?

Beaware of all federal lands

I suppose post offices are off limits.....or are they. Geeze, I've been going into one carrying for 6 months. Must be a good conceal, no one has said anything.

Lets hope you are not the first test case.

According to Packing.Org, post offices are ok to carry in. We had this topic a few months back, I just can't remember were it was.

You would think that Post Offices are off limits by the signage:



Read this article and make up your own mind:

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rtc-usps.html

It's certainly an untested area of law. As Joel writes in his "Everything..." book, test cases are for other people.


Although, as I teach in my classes, if anyone has a lot of time and money to spare, please give it a shot. I'd love to see this decided.

I went looking and here is a link to the previous discussion.

http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=369

Also if post offices are off limits, then so too are their parking lots as they are federal property.

I choose to take the advise of the afore mentioned lawyer and the advise of Joe Olsen.

The GENERAL federal statute covering federal property (but not courts or military bases, for example) is ALWAYS misquoted on agency signs and pamphlets. Here is the whole thing:

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
Release date: 2005-08-03.
(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. [One of the very few federal misdemeanors offenses.]
(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 [otherwise] lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
* * *
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

IMHO, carry under the authority of a valid state carry permit for the purpose of justified self-defense fits precisely within the bolded language[/b]

That's how I read it as well. Unfortunately, since I can't guarantee that a judge is going to agree with my analysis, I'm not going to try it and see.

On the other hand, if a respected law professor and pillar of the community wanted to make a test case of himself...