Interesting: Lawsuit about bringing guns into Post Offices

[Kirk Freeman]

JetGirl at pharmacy counter: "Sir, are you here to refill your prescription for depression?"

Horse: "Why yes, I am. How did you know?"

JetGirl: "Well, to be frank, it's the long face."

If you want Kirk to continue, text "Attaboy, Kirk!"

To make Kirk stop, text "just shut the *&^% up already, Freeman!"

 

[pudly]

Is JetGirl moonlighting now?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is JetGirl moonlighting now?

No, she has always been a pharmacist.

 

[JetGirl]

So that's not just monkey poo you fling around?

I don't fling and tell.

No, she has always been a pharmacist.

Yes. But only in Kirk's head.

 

[MikeDVB]

It's always the same battle - they want to stop people from carrying guns by force of law thinking that criminals adhere to the law. It's twisted but they don't see it.

 

[ModernGunner]

The Post Office is just one more place that should be deemed a 'place of public access'. Meaning, that if they 'invite' customers to patronize their business, or 'open to the public' (meaning anyone acting lawfully can readily walk in), then that business cannot prohibit the 'invitees' from exercising their otherwise lawful rights, and the rights of the patrons should be the same as if they were lawfully walking down the street.

 

[hd96heritage]

agreeing with all of this. the only point they made was for carrying, not against it. we don't believe it's safe for you to protect yourself from the shooting we've had in the past. i love how the left actually believes they can legislate safety.... fairy tale land with rose pedal glasses on!

 

[Bill of Rights]

The Post Office is just one more place that should be deemed a 'place of public access'. Meaning, that if they 'invite' customers to patronize their business, or 'open to the public' (meaning anyone acting lawfully can readily walk in), then that business cannot prohibit the 'invitees' from exercising their otherwise lawful rights, and the rights of the patrons should be the same as if they were lawfully walking down the street.

Finally, you make a post I can agree with, however for a different reason. The USPO is a government entity, or at least it once was. Government is generally, specifically, and categorically forbidden from infringing upon the RKBA. The "place of public access" angle you believe in needs to be addressed by individuals, perhaps by groups, using the free market to change minds, not by laws that only grow government power and authority.

If the law can force a business to allow something the owner does not want, it can force a business to disallow something the owner wants as well, as we've seen already with bakeries, etc., vs. smoking bans. The free market is better, as evidenced by all of the so-called "wins" that MdA crows about, none of which actually amounted to the bans they claim were enacted; The businesses just told Watts and her group of well-financed sheep what they wanted to hear, issued policy statements that were nothing of the sort (wink wink nudge nudge), and patted the Demanding Mommies on their little heads.... And then there is Kroger, who has decided to be a thorn in Watts' and Bloomberg's sides, and tell them where they can stuff their "ban" idea. If a business wants to ban, let them. Let them at the same time feel their former customers' wrath, in the form of the boycott.

As for the same rights as one "lawfully walking down the street", consider the idea of "stop and frisk" before you wish for that too hard.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Redhorse]

I might be a monkey, but I speak fluent horse.

Bahahaha thanks Jetgirl. That's what I meant.