Interesting: Lawsuit about bringing guns into Post Offices

[pudly]

Not sure where this will lead, but it might be the crack that eventually leads to opening the flood gates:

Federal Appeals Court to Mull Guns in Post Offices - ABC News

 

[j706]

Because everyone knows that banning guns on postal property assures there will never be a shooting there. People can be so silly.

 

[snapping turtle]

We still use the term going postal.

I mean who who cares when was the last time anyone wAs in a post office.

I did did three months ago to get shipping boxes. Other than that it was like two yeArs. The post office is dead put a fork in it.

still good news might come out of it but I think it is moot point.

 

[skulhedface]

Now if only they'd extend the it's ok in a locked vehicle to employees. Never understood how I can park right next to a vehicle that could legally have a weapon in it, but if I have one they'll fire and prosecute me.

On a side note, I really wish people were more aware of what's actually happening with the postal service. Dead, maybe, but not from natural causes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[mrjarrell]

Interesting to see that the case is supported by NAGR but there's no mention of anyone else.

 

[M67]

We still use the term going postal.

I mean who who cares when was the last time anyone wAs in a post office.

I did did three months ago to get shipping boxes. Other than that it was like two yeArs. The post office is dead put a fork in it.

still good news might come out of it but I think it is moot point.

In the past 3-4 years I've spent over $2k at the post office, I usually go there once a week, sometimes more.

That being said....I don't take anything off when I go into the PO

 

[jon5212]

I was going to say I don't think our post office here has any signs that would warn anyone... did see them at the Abraham Lincoln park in Kentucky though...

 

[Lex Concord]

Now if only they'd extend the it's ok in a locked vehicle to employees. Never understood how I can park right next to a vehicle that could legally have a weapon in it, but if I have one they'll fire and prosecute me.

On a side note, I really wish people were more aware of what's actually happening with the postal service. Dead, maybe, but not from natural causes.

Nothing about the USPS is natural. It's current existence is an affront to liberty on numerous levels.

 

[Bennettjh]

I haven't been to a post office in a while but I'm all about being able to carry everywhere.

 

[skulhedface]

Nothing about the USPS is natural. It's current existence is an affront to liberty on numerous levels.

How so? I've heard similar statements about the Postal Service before, but never quite understood in what way. Could you explain?

 

[poptab]

How so? I've heard similar statements about the Postal Service before, but never quite understood in what way. Could you explain?

Look up a guy named Lysander spooner

 

[skulhedface]

I'll open a general politics thread where we can continue the conversation if you'd like. Don't want to drag this one too far off topic.


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ssion/361093-postal-politics.html#post5330638

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I'm just a stupid engineer, but somebody help me out here.

The Judge says:

"One of the justices, Judge Gregory A. Phillips, noted that not all people who bring guns into buildings bring them to protect themselves. There have been several shootings at postal facilities and other government buildings in recent years. A former postal employee in 2006 shot five people to death at a huge mail-processing center in California before killing herself."

But, that's the argument to keep the law outlawing guns in the post office? Sounds like an argument for allowing people to protect themselves. What am I missing?

 

[skulhedface]

I'm just a stupid engineer, but somebody help me out here.

The Judge says:

"One of the justices, Judge Gregory A. Phillips, noted that not all people who bring guns into buildings bring them to protect themselves. There have been several shootings at postal facilities and other government buildings in recent years. A former postal employee in 2006 shot five people to death at a huge mail-processing center in California before killing herself."

But, that's the argument to keep the law outlawing guns in the post office? Sounds like an argument for allowing people to protect themselves. What am I missing?

The other half of the argument is whether a post office is a federal facility under 18 USC 930 Edit, My read is that he feels he should not have to disarm since no security is provided by the PO


§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(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.

(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(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.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(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.

 

[Expat]

The Post office is one of the few things the government is involved in that is actually Constitutional.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

How does an example of illegally carrying a firearm into a PO and shooting people help the argument that guns should be outlawed in PO's? That sounds like an argument FOR self defense.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Also, in spite of §930 federally owned property - BLM - you may carry for protection and you don't have to be hunting.

 

[Expat]

How does an example of illegally carrying a firearm into a PO and shooting people help the argument that guns should be outlawed in PO's? That sounds like an argument FOR self defense.

Only to logical people... no one has ever accused the left of being logical.

 

[actaeon277]

How does an example of illegally carrying a firearm into a PO and shooting people help the argument that guns should be outlawed in PO's? That sounds like an argument FOR self defense.

And, if I remember right, "going postal" refers to shootings done by post office employees. NOT customers.