Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Post office carry suit.

  1. #1
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Post office carry suit.

    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Good news, so far so good. I would think since the SCOTUS ruling on Heller, that a post office is under federal control and by banning firearms the government is infringing on the 2A. I don't see what's so sensitive about a post office, not much different than Amtrack.

    But since the future of a publicly controlled postal service is in question, this may be a moot point.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Good news, so far so good. I would think since the SCOTUS ruling on Heller, that a post office is under federal control and by banning firearms the government is infringing on the 2A. I don't see what's so sensitive about a post office, not much different than Amtrack.

    But since the future of a publicly controlled postal service is in question, this may be a moot point.
    No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :
    I know, what I was referring to was Heller in regards to a personal right and affecting D.C. a Federal strong-hold.

    I don't think a post office is a "sensitive" place.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811
    everybody has heard the saying "going postal" where did that originally come from? wasnt it a post office shooting by a crazed employee?

    exactly why the citizens should be allowed to carry in posts offices, postal workers could....go postal and would need to be stopped in seconds, not minutes or hours.
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  6. #6
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by lil_freak_66
    everybody has heard the saying "going postal" where did that originally come from?
    wasnt it a post office shooting by a crazed employee?
    Impossible!
    Nobody but on-duty LEO can have a useful firearm on USPS property.
    It's a law.
    Laws prevent crime, right?
    The postal shooting thing is an urban myth.
    [/sarcasm]
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    I don't know how many of you know the whole story but given the actions of the guys supervisor, his actions didn't really come unexpected. While I don't condone what the guy did; I can understand his frame of mind and why he did it. Being an ex postal employee, his situation didn't surprise me a bit.

    At the time there were actually more work place shootings elsewhere. It's just a lot more news drams to put the spotlight on the post office. They milked that story for two weeks and still didn't have all the facts right. No surprise here.

  8. #8
    Regular Member T Mack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Livonia, Michigan. USA
    Posts
    207

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by WARCHILD View Post
    I don't know how many of you know the whole story but given the actions of the guys supervisor, his actions didn't really come unexpected. While I don't condone what the guy did; I can understand his frame of mind and why he did it. Being an ex postal employee, his situation didn't surprise me a bit.

    At the time there were actually more work place shootings elsewhere. It's just a lot more news drams to put the spotlight on the post office. They milked that story for two weeks and still didn't have all the facts right. No surprise here.
    Yea like Ford Motor Co! They had a rash of in plant shootings
    "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." - Article 1, Section 25

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    i have a hard time wrapping my head around the legality of mailing a long gun while not being able to posses a firearm on USPS property. how is that possible?
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Because you can possess one on their property for official business.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  11. #11
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772
    If the rules were not changed (not sure since I left), the long gun is supposed to be broken down and boxed/cased prior to entering.

    They must feel safer if they can't see it...out of sight...out of mind..head still in the sand!

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    head in the sand, indeed. but then again that's business as usual for the government.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
    Forgive me, any time I see someone talk about this part of the Heller decision, I am compelled to fill in the extremely important blanks, which more fully explain exactly what is being said.

    [By the way, you quote from the Syllabus portion of the ruling, which is somewhat of an executive summary of the text of the opinion, but which also carries absolutely no legal weight whatsoever. See the definition at the very top of the Heller opinion itself:

    NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
    being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
    The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
    prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.]


    On to the important stuff.

    Here is the pertinent quote from the actual opinion text, pp 54-55:

    "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

    Note the all-important footnote, 26, which states:

    "26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

    What this means is that not only did Heller not state that these prohibitions pass constitutional muster, but they explicitly stated (by using the word "presumptively") that they did not even consider these matters. At all!

    As is almost always the case in complex court cases, only the issues at the very core of the matter are considered. This nearly universally misunderstood part of Heller is the fictitious "gas" that the anti-gun crowd is running on, but unfortunately, what many of the lower anti-gun courts are also basing their flawed opinions on as well.

    TFred

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I hope they can restore the right to carry there.

Posting Permissions

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