Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Challenge to gun ban on postal service property

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Challenge to gun ban on postal service property

    “Attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation are taking on the US Postal Service’s ban on any firearm on USPS property. The challenge is on behalf of Debbie and Tab Bonidy of Avon, Colorado …. The Bonidys live in a rural area of Colorado that doesn’t have home mail delivery. Because of that, the local post office in Avon, Colorado provides the residents of the area with a post office box at no charge. While they both have Colorado concealed carry permits and regularly carry, the Bonidys cannot carry concealed or openly when picking up their mail. They even can’t leave their firearms locked in their car as this would violate 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l).” (10/06/10)

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...on-postal.html

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Good news! Thank you. Would you please beg Administrator to re-title the thread to feature NAGR and MSLF involvement?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38725771/B...USPS-Complaint
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 10-08-2010 at 07:34 AM.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Good news! Thank you. Would you please beg Administrator to re-title the thread to feature NAGR and MSLF involvement?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/38725771/B...USPS-Complaint
    Takes you to the complaint as well.
    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/att...8&d=1286484449
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    It's the employees you have to worry about. They are the ones that go postal.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by M1Gunr View Post
    “Attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation are taking on the US Postal Service’s ban on any firearm on USPS property. The challenge is on behalf of Debbie and Tab Bonidy of Avon, Colorado …. The Bonidys live in a rural area of Colorado that doesn’t have home mail delivery. Because of that, the local post office in Avon, Colorado provides the residents of the area with a post office box at no charge. While they both have Colorado concealed carry permits and regularly carry, the Bonidys cannot carry concealed or openly when picking up their mail. They even can’t leave their firearms locked in their car as this would violate 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l).” (10/06/10)

    http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...on-postal.html
    I'm all for overturning any and all statutes prohibiting both open and concealed carry on USPS property.

    Yes, the USPS has born the brunt of employee firearms offenses. I would ask, however, if depriving the other 278 employees of their reight to defend themselves in accordance with the Constitutional rights for which I swore, fought, and defended for more than twenty years, is worth protecting the single individual right of the most vociferous complainer, when the results of said complainer resulted in both an absolute restriction against employees being able to protect themselves and a number of dead?

    Yeah, I'd call that a very decided failed experiment...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Takes you to the complaint as well.
    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/att...8&d=1286484449
    Venator, your link requires a membership sign-in. You should probably remove it, as the general population can't read it.

    TFred

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    This is a very good first step, but I have to say, reading through the complaint, and their over-the-top references to the fact that their plaintiffs have concealed carry permits leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth.

    They should have hammered "lawfully possessed", not "permitted".

    The last thing we need is for some judge to half-fix this problem for permit holders only. Of course there is no constitutional basis for permits anyway, so to do that they would have to make up law... so yeah, that possibility scares me.

    TFred

  8. #8
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    I would love to see the courts filled thruout this country with challenges to infringing gun laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny amish View Post
    I would love to see the courts filled thruout this country with challenges to infringing gun laws.
    The key is not to flood the courts, but to pick very good cases, in very good jurisdictions that are likely to win.

    Better to win all few cases than to flood the courts and lose some of them.

    TFred

  10. #10
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The key is not to flood the courts, but to pick very good cases, in very good jurisdictions that are likely to win.

    Better to win all few cases than to flood the courts and lose some of them.

    TFred
    Good point, the reason I said flooded is because with over 20,000 gun laws on the books today it should be easy to find enough good cases to flood the courts.

Posting Permissions

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