Keep in mind the US government is the biggest offender of the 2nd amendment.
I do wish them luck on the law suit.
Printable View
Keep in mind the US government is the biggest offender of the 2nd amendment.
I do wish them luck on the law suit.
Hope they win.
The OP is over a year and a half old, but I figured since it's been revived, I'd throw this in.
The other day, I noticed that my local post office no longer has gun buster signs on the doors, and I'm 100% certain that they used to.
Curious...
Throwing in monkey wrench.
I spent 26 years as an Investigator for the Nevada State Contractor board. Federal property, that is property , OWNED, by the federal government was exempt from the statutes governing the licensing and regulation of contractors for work performed on federal property.
BUT and it was a big But, If the land or property was leased by the federal government it was not exempt from the licensing laws and the State of Nevada had jurisdiction .
This included several post offices that were build on leased land. even if the lease was for 99 years, or the USPS established an office in a leased building.
I always wondered if the no firearms rules applied. I never test them and never carried in the buildings.
NRS: CHAPTER 624 - CONTRACTORS
NRS 624.031 Applicability of chapter: Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to:.......
8. The construction, alteration, improvement or repair financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and conducted within the limits and boundaries of a site or reservation, the title of which rests in the Federal Government.
I do not believe the law has been changed. I would advise anyone against going into a post office armed. As for a posted sign in a post office, it can be anywhere or no where. At my branch post office I had to hunt for it. It is not posted in a place where most customers would see it. The feds have no sense of humor and will not let slide even if it wasn't posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xader
I'm not implying that it's now OK to carry there, but I found it interesting that it's no longer on the window between the doors where it has always been. I looked around and couldn't find one. So they either moved it someplace out of sight, removed it completely, or it was vandalized (which seems as likely as any other explanation)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowman
I hope they come out on top. I was just thinking the other day that I feel most vulnerable in the post office. I'm always mailing ebay things after work as another source of income. As I stand there in the quiet, unarmed, I feel pretty vulnerable.
for the record, the federal ban on firearms in buildings require that the policy be posted at entrances. All post offices are posted, but there are federally owned buildings which are not posted.
It only applies to actual post offices though, there are a lot of post office looking locations that aren't actually post offices, they aren't on land owned by the fed, or in a building leased by the fed.
Exactly.Quote:
It applies not just to USPS buildings, as is written into the Postal Code, but in fact applies to all Federal govt. 'property' (buildings, facilities, land, etc) including parking lots be it your local USPS or that of the Pentagon (!).
Again this is nothing at all new nor obscure & unknown.
Dudley Brown runs NAGR. Dudley Brown is an alarmist of the first order. Last winter Brown was soundly pummeled on the AR-15 forum after he lied in an attempt to solicit contributions. This thing is longer than the Dead Sea Scrolls: It also speaks volumes about the character of Dudley Brown.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/126...ts.html&page=1
Brown also runs Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. RMGO may have lost its tax exempt status. Brown claims his computer crashed.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...e-irs-could-beQuote:
In addition, the Colorado secretary of state this past May suspended the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' registration as a "charitable organization" for failure to file timely reports
It would be nice but no chance, FEDERAL and that is that.
Janq-Quote:
Originally Posted by Janq
have you ever read the entire 18 USC 930? There is a very specific exeption that the USPS fails to print on their signs; to whit.....
Would not carrying for personal protection where legal fall into other lawful purposes.??? Or is my reading comprehension failing with old age. I confronted a US Attorney with the above law with highlights a few years ago; she couldn't run away from me fast enough.Quote:
)(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be
I have taken note of the "other lawful purposes" clause in the past myself. Nobody wants to be the first test case, though. If a case does win on this clause, that guy and his attorney will be heroes for sure.
none of this makes sense anymore to noone (sic)
so im getting off at Willoughby
http://www.rod-serling.com/wav/tzone...0/10_astop.wavQuote:
Originally Posted by claude clay
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I would suggest looking up the word purpose in the dictionary as a start.