California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Easily remedied by not subscribing to the thread, or by ignoring the posts or by asking for the thread to be closed.
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
USPS and Carry
- Thread starter nuc65
- Start date
Easily remedied by not subscribing to the thread, or by ignoring the posts or by asking for the thread to be closed.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Fortunately I don't have to worry about this at my local post office. I can park, walk on the sidewalk right in front of the PO, and use their mail drop off box and am breaking no federal laws.
Works well as long as you don't need to pick up any mail. The plaintiff in the case lived where there was no RFD mailbox delivery - no choice but to go inside the PO to open his box to get all the groccery coupons and satallite tv offers. OBTW - about half the gun-stuff suppliers ship by USPS, which adds to the number of times you might want to go inside the PO.
stay safe.
cjohnson44546
Regular Member
That will never happen.
The government is held accountable to the constitution by another part of the same government, that is appointed by the government that breaks it... basically, the judges who make the ruling are lap dogs of those breaking the constitution... so they twist everything how they want it, instead of how it is, and claim it whichever way they want it to be. I don't see how this will ever change.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Yep, I am aware of that.
user
Accomplished Advocate
My only problem with all that is that Congress has already declared what the law is regarding just plain folks carrying firearms into "federal facilities". The USPS regulation purports to operate "notwithstanding any law to the contrary", placing themselves above the Government of the United States as supreme sovereign, able to dictate what's what irrespective of what Congress and the President have enacted as law. The USPS doesn't really have the authority to dictate terms to non-employees that exceed the scope of the law. When a statute expressly states the terms that apply, the presumption is that Congress meant what it said and that the President endorsed it. If they meant to allow greater intrusions into our freedoms, they'd have said so. "Expressio unius alterius exclusio est." (The expression of one thing is the exclusion of all others.) Except where Congress has specifically delegated legislative authority to an agency by law (e.g., the Pure Food and Drug Act), that agency has no greater power than the President to tell folks what to do or how to do it. That's why the USPS has no authority over guns in the public parking lots.
The buildings, however, in which U.S. employees routinely do their work, are "federal facilities" under 18 USC 922, so, when there's a sign conspicuously posted or for some other reason one has actual notice of the prohibition, he can be convicted of a crime for carrying a firearm into the post office itself.
The buildings, however, in which U.S. employees routinely do their work, are "federal facilities" under 18 USC 922, so, when there's a sign conspicuously posted or for some other reason one has actual notice of the prohibition, he can be convicted of a crime for carrying a firearm into the post office itself.
User -
Just to stir up the waters even more -
USPS is a "quasi-governmental" entity. Depending on their whim and what they want they claim to be privatized but retaining the government monopoly on delivery of First Class mail, and of insertion of any and all matter into RFD mailboxes/household letter boxes.
So, is "quasi-governmental" sufficient under the law to claim to be a government facility. (Don't care what USPS says, want to know what the law says. Especially since one judge seems to have decided that at one post office the front part where government employees regualrly perform their assigned duties does not meet that definition.)
stay safe.
Just to stir up the waters even more -
USPS is a "quasi-governmental" entity. Depending on their whim and what they want they claim to be privatized but retaining the government monopoly on delivery of First Class mail, and of insertion of any and all matter into RFD mailboxes/household letter boxes.
So, is "quasi-governmental" sufficient under the law to claim to be a government facility. (Don't care what USPS says, want to know what the law says. Especially since one judge seems to have decided that at one post office the front part where government employees regualrly perform their assigned duties does not meet that definition.)
stay safe.
TFred
Regular Member
Would you suggest that it would make more sense to post the link to the audio recording of the trial in a new thread, with no context whatsoever? How is that better?
TFred
I didn't suggest anything. Stop trying to put words into peoples posts.
Originally Posted by TFred
Would you suggest that it would make more sense to post the link to the audio recording of the trial in a new thread, with no context whatsoever? How is that better?
TFred
Gentlemen - if you please.
Both were speaking hypothetically. See no intended insult.
TFred
Regular Member
I'm just saying... when people complain of reviving old posts, it's usually because there is no reason for doing so. This post was updated with the audio of the oral arguments for the case that it was about. How is that a bad thing? What would the complainer have the poster do that would be better?
What other possible reason could one have to throw out the word "necropost?"
TFred
user
Accomplished Advocate
Last edited: