The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Boulderlaw on July 26, 2010, 02:59:58 PM

Title: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Boulderlaw on July 26, 2010, 02:59:58 PM
Mountain States Legal Foundation has laid down the gauntlet: Repeal the post office firearms ban or else:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34770833/Postal-Service-Gun-Ban
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: ericire12 on July 26, 2010, 03:17:10 PM
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: bafsu92 on July 26, 2010, 04:22:47 PM
This has been an issue in Florida as well. It's kind of a little known subject since the media doesn't seem to want to discuss it but most of the post offices in Florida (not sure about other states) are not owned by the federal government but simply leased buildings. There is a movement to ignore the no carrying in post office rules here to challenge the rule since you are not in fact on government property. If they actually post no weapons on the door they could still trespass you but most proponents of this move feel the government building thing will not hold up in court. I heard of one person arrested but the DA didn't file, probably to avoid the firestorm it would start if they tried.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: jaybet on July 26, 2010, 06:01:41 PM
I would like to see similar logic, especially the wording from Heller, to NJ's "may issue" carry permit regulations. You must prove to a judge there is an imminent threat or even previous attacks. Almost no-one except some politically connected get carry permits. Why doesn't one of the large groups attack NJ law?
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: twyacht on July 26, 2010, 06:26:42 PM
Given the history of Postal Workers, and their anti-gun policy, regarding shipping of firearms, I'll stick to UPS, tracking numbers, and a more "realistic" approach.

Received my Kel-Tec, couple of years ago via UPS, dealt with my Walther PPK/S recall, the same way, and my Sig 556 after a squib rd. All trips required service at the "mother ship", and had no issues.

Considering the financial status of the USPS, one would think, they would be more "open" to shipping whatever they can.



Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: alfsauve on July 26, 2010, 07:44:45 PM
I would like to see someone challenge the USPS on refusing to ship handguns.   My thought is the USPS is the delivery service of "the people" and anything that's legal to posses and legal to transfer should be able to ship by "the people's" delivery service.

Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Solus on July 26, 2010, 09:03:17 PM
I would like to see someone challenge the USPS on refusing to ship handguns.   My thought is the USPS is the delivery service of "the people" and anything that's legal to posses and legal to transfer should be able to ship by "the people's" delivery service.



I suspect they don't think there is a very good chance their employees can be trusted enough for hand guns to be delivered.

Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: kygunnut on July 27, 2010, 09:11:47 AM
Mountain States Legal Foundation has laid down the gauntlet: Repeal the post office firearms ban or else:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34770833/Postal-Service-Gun-Ban

I really hope someone in this area keeps us informed on the progress of this. I DO carry in the local post offices as I consider my self defense and my CCDW (In Kentucky they are concealed carry deadly weapon licenses but that is for another post)  as part of the "Or other legal purposes" area of that regulation. Never been challenged but also have never "advertized" that I carry. Concealed means concealed.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Boulderlaw on July 27, 2010, 10:01:20 AM
Here is an update on post-McDonald litigation:

MSLF:
http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/legal_cases.cfm?legalcaseid=224

SAF:
http://saf.org/default.asp?p=legalaction

NRA:
http://www.nradefensefund.org/litigation.aspx
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Hazcat on July 27, 2010, 10:19:46 AM
So SAF lists current major cases and the NRA lists old crap and funny I didn't see where they listed their opposition to Heller.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: tombogan03884 on July 27, 2010, 11:56:52 AM
Yep, that's about right.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Boulderlaw on October 06, 2010, 10:06:33 AM
Lawsuit filed challenging Postal Service gun ban:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/10/challenge-to-ban-on-firearms-on-postal.html

Also, the linked blog is a great resource for post-McDonald litigation. One of the most comprehensive.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: 2HOW on October 06, 2010, 10:30:42 AM
A bank in my area, Regions bank has said they will ban all firearms. Another bank, 1st Tennessee Bank was robbed the week they laid off guards.  ???
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: tombogan03884 on October 06, 2010, 11:02:45 AM
A bank in my area, Regions bank has said they will ban all firearms. Another bank, 1st Tennessee Bank was robbed the week they laid off guards.  ???

 Who could have seen that coming ?
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Boulderlaw on October 06, 2010, 11:11:19 AM
A bank in my area, Regions bank has said they will ban all firearms. Another bank, 1st Tennessee Bank was robbed the week they laid off guards.  ???

No guns = No money
http://www.learntocarry.com/nogunsnomoney/

Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: fightingquaker13 on October 06, 2010, 01:08:47 PM
A bank in my area, Regions bank has said they will ban all firearms. Another bank, 1st Tennessee Bank was robbed the week they laid off guards.  ???
Now that right there is funny. You know those laid off guards are laughing their asses off. I wonder how much more per hour they got when they reapplied? ;D
FQ13
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: 2HOW on October 06, 2010, 09:47:25 PM
Now that right there is funny. You know those laid off guards are laughing their asses off. I wonder how much more per hour they got when they reapplied? ;D
FQ13

Wish that would happen. I was one of the 27 men laid off, and yes I did laugh. Another weird thing was that after the Ingles supermarket guard was killed, Ingles cancelled their contract as well. Another post I had. ???
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: fightingquaker13 on October 06, 2010, 10:08:14 PM
Wish that would happen. I was one of the 27 men laid off, and yes I did laugh. Another weird thing was that after the Ingles supermarket guard was killed, Ingles cancelled their contract as well. Another post I had. ???
Maybe you ought to start a protection racket 2How, "Lay me off, you get robbed". :-\ Sad, but apparently true. It seems the words "penny wise, but pound foolish" are getting driven home to some folks the hard way. Hope thet learn the lesson and rehire you.
FQ13 who thinks the best $500 you can spend is on a pistol you never fire in anger
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: r_w on October 07, 2010, 08:06:30 AM
Maybe you ought to start a protection racket 2How, "Lay me off, you get robbed". :-\ Sad, but apparently true. It seems the words "penny wise, but pound foolish" are getting driven home to some folks the hard way. Hope thet learn the lesson and rehire you.
FQ13 who thinks the best $500 you can spend is on a pistol you never fire in anger

I think that's what a couple others in the 27 did.  Or at the least rattled their mouths off while drowning their sorrows in a bar within earshot of someone that would.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: Ichiban on October 07, 2010, 09:21:53 AM
Banks really don't care if they get robbed - after all, it's not their money, it's yours (well, taxpayer money anyway).  As long as no one gets hurt they have no incentive to prevent robberies.
Title: Re: Post Office gun ban challenged
Post by: 2HOW on October 07, 2010, 10:30:46 AM
I do know why they always say "an undisclosed amount of money"  when it does happen.   Insurance covers it, but the PTSD that comes with it costs them big.