• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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What I want to hear is that the section of federal law that prohibits carry in post offices is flat repealed and that the post office is flat barred from regulating the carry of any personal weapons.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.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
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What I want to hear is that the section of federal law that prohibits carry in post offices is flat repealed and that the post office is flat barred from regulating the carry of any personal weapons.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:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Have not seen the actual amendment proposed yet, so will reserve judgement until confirming the verbiage.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot

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.
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

You introduced the word "allow" in your quote. I am addressing that word.

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"????
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

mdak06

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
59
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
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.
 

mdak06

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
59
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
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:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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
 
Top