Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Read, find your senator and get the emails going - carry in P.O.

  1. #1
    Regular Member audiophile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Midwest City
    Posts
    21

    Read, find your senator and get the emails going - carry in P.O.

    http://www.gunowners.org/alert1282014.htm

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-28-2014 at 08:36 PM. Reason: Added to title

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Postal Reform Act (S. 1486).

    Always good to give people a brief synopsis of the thread.

    "On Wednesday, January 29, Senator Rand Paul will offer an amendment, in committee, to the Postal Reform Act (S. 1486).

    The amendment will allow you to drive into a post office parking lot with your gun, and will allow you to carry it into the post office, to the extent state law would allow you to carry that firearm in any other venue."
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I assume that this is a federal issue and not a state .. from the information that Grape noted...

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    So nice that the federal government will "allow" us.

    What I want to hear is that the section of federal law that prohibits carry in post offices is flat repealed and that the post office is flat barred from regulating the carry of any personal weapons. I don't want to hear that the federal government is going to "allow us to exercise our Rights. What we let them "allow" us to do, we let them prohibit us from doing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    So nice that the federal government will "allow" us.

    What I want to hear is that the section of federal law that prohibits carry in post offices is flat repealed and that the post office is flat barred from regulating the carry of any personal weapons. I don't want to hear that the federal government is going to "allow us to exercise our Rights. What we let them "allow" us to do, we let them prohibit us from doing.
    I like the fact that the government mastahs are so nice as to allow us to do this. After all, the mastahs aren't so bad. They let us talk freely so long as we don't say anything they don't approve of, and they let us have privacy so long as we don't try to keep something from them. The mastahs also let us keep some of the fruit of our labor. See? The mastahs aren't so bad.

    /sarcasm off.

    I agree with eye95 about this sending the wrong message. If we continue to "ask" for permission via these laws, we'll soon have the entire system become one of collective needs and permissions instead of one of individual Rights and ability. Would rather see this re-worded than passes as a "permission" law. That is, assuming the law explains it as the postal office "allowing" sidearms, and not "are hereby prohibited from denying lawfully-carried weapons into the buildings".
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 01-28-2014 at 10:28 PM.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Have not seen the actual amendment proposed yet, so will reserve judgement until confirming the verbiage.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Have not seen the actual amendment proposed yet, so will reserve judgement until confirming the verbiage.
    You introduced the word "allow" in your quote. I am addressing that word.
    Last edited by eye95; 01-29-2014 at 07:02 AM.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot

    Have not seen the actual amendment proposed yet, so will reserve judgement until confirming the verbiage.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You introduced the word "allow" in your quote. I am addressing that word.
    I did not "introduce" allow - it is quoted content from the OP's link, used to be a general descriptor.

    No point in ranting/taking exception to non-confirmed words, implied to exist in a non-confirmed amendment.

    The amendment should be available later today for review - then you'll have something factual to consider.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I did say that you introduced the word in your quote. Duh.

    And, if that word is introduced, I will discuss it (not "rant," as you dishonestly and insultingly characterize it), whether you like it or not. Feel free to use your power to do something about an opinion you don't like. See my sig.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You introduced the word "allow" in your quote. I am addressing that word.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I did say that you introduced the word in your quote. Duh.

    And, if that word is introduced, I will discuss it (not "rant," as you dishonestly and insultingly characterize it), whether you like it or not. Feel free to use your power to do something about an opinion you don't like. See my sig.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    OMG!!!! Have you??? And ALL of your Civility,,, gone stark raving MAD???

    you are going off on someone saying "allow"????

    You want to discuss the word "allow"???? bUT YOU DONT WANT TO "RANT"????
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Always good to give people a brief synopsis of the thread.

    "On Wednesday, January 29, Senator Rand Paul will offer an amendment, in committee, to the Postal Reform Act (S. 1486).

    The amendment will allow you to drive into a post office parking lot with your gun, and will allow you to carry it into the post office, to the extent state law would allow you to carry that firearm in any other venue."
    I tend to use the "wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text" function provided for here on OCDO so that my words are clearly discernible from another person's words. But, my eyesight is not what it used to be and I missed those teeny tiny quote marks, like the ones I just used. I gotta do a better job of looking for small text on the computer screen.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    When it happens, this is where to start, thomas server at Library of Congress

    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-29-2014 at 08:23 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I did say that you introduced the word in your quote. Duh.

    And, if that word is introduced, I will discuss it (not "rant," as you dishonestly and insultingly characterize it), whether you like it or not. Feel free to use your power to do something about an opinion you don't like. See my sig.
    ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethics

    Your "ethics" apparently do not include following the rules or standards which have been made abundantly clear repetitiously. It would seem you thereby compromise your values..........and yes you rant.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member mdak06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    61
    FWIW, I think there are differences between laws that regulate federal property (e.g. post offices, federal parks, military bases, etc.) and laws that regulate either public (streets, sidewalks) or private (any business, non-gov organization, or residence) property.

    The owner of private property absolutely does "allow" someone to carry (or prohibits them from carrying) a weapon onto their premises. If a restaurant, or retail store, or any other business welcomes firearms onto their property, they are indeed "allowing" them. It is their right, as it is their property.

    The difference in this case, of course, is that the owner of the property is the federal government. So we're not talking about private property, and therefore circumstances are a bit different.

    If I was making a proposal for an all-encompassing federal law, I would borrow from the "Kansas plan" and extend it ... something like this:

    The management of any federal government property that chooses to prohibit visitors from carrying weapons on its property must:

    (1) provide sufficient justification as to why persons may not carry weapons;
    (2) provide sufficient security to protect all persons on the property at all times; and,
    (3) provide a secure location for weapons carriers to store their weapons near the entrance of the property.

    Any property that meets one of the following conditions may not prohibit the carrying of weapons:

    (1) any property for which the management cannot reasonably control entry and exit, such as a park, forest, wilderness area, etc.
    (2) any property that is commonly used by many members of the public, such as a post office, social security office, veterans affairs office, museum, etc.

    There could be minor exceptions carved out - e.g. areas that are used for hunting could prohibit rifles and shotguns during non-hunting season - but I think this would cover most circumstances.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mdak06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    61
    As far as Paul's amendment is concerned regarding the post office, I don't yet know the details but I have to assume it is better than what currently exists.

    And briefly, back to the "allow" stuff ... I do consider the use of language very important. Whenever I make a comment, I always try remember to make the point that a good law would simply "remove the prohibition" of carrying a weapon, rather than "allow" the carrying of a weapon.

    In this case, given that we're specifically talking about federal property, I don't think "allow" is horribly misused, since its use would be appropriate if we were talking about what a private property owner chooses to permit and/or prohibit on their own property.

    When it's misused is when the law says that private property owners may not decide for themselves whether or not to allow the carrying of weapons, or that people who are on what is truly "public property" (streets, sidewalks, etc.) may not carry. Those laws are illegal infringements of the RKBA.
    Last edited by mdak06; 01-29-2014 at 12:18 PM. Reason: replaced "prohibitions" with "infringements" at end

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    From what I have been able to read about on the subject, it may be to associate ones P.O. Box with private property, but that is entirely hypothetical ATM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    From what I have been able to read about on the subject, it may be to associate ones P.O. Box with private property, but that is entirely hypothetical ATM.
    technically, my mailbox on the curb in front of my house is "federal property." Now, the question is whether or not you can OC in your mailbox, since it is on your property you can OC to and from your mailbox.

    If you get peeved at a bill received in your mailbox and subsequently shoot your mailbox, you would then be subject to a charge of violating the below cited USC.

    https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/raddocs/tipvandl.htm

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    LOL we're having eXceptional snow this winter and RR boxes are taking the brunt of the snowplows trying to plow as wide as possible in preparation for the next snowfall. Many boxes are mounted in buckets of concrete and don't survive. Some are on swing arms and may survive a hit or two, but they've obviously been hit.

    My builder-owner was a welder so my mail box is on a twenty foot iron pipe that tips up, above the snowplow's blade, on a foundation of a single bottom plow. I've tied a monkey-fist knot on a leash for the postman to pull the box down if I forget to. The plow can hit that, and it swings around and bangs the box.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I read a hint of Rube Goldberg in your post.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161

    S.1486 Latest Major Action: 1/29/2014 Senate committee/subcommittee actions.

    Latest Major Action: 1/29/2014 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...3:SN01486:@@@X
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •