Finally, a Post Office lawsuit to quash firearm ban, by NAGR

This is a discussion on Finally, a Post Office lawsuit to quash firearm ban, by NAGR within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Keep in mind the US government is the biggest offender of the 2nd amendment. I do wish them luck on the law suit....

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Finally, a Post Office lawsuit to quash firearm ban, by NAGR

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Keep in mind the US government is the biggest offender of the 2nd amendment.

    I do wish them luck on the law suit.
    PPKman, BurgerBoy and gigamortis like this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,724
    Hope they win.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  4. #33
    Distinguished Member
    Array Xader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,551
    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...

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array Beans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ Border Territory,
    Posts
    1,002
    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.
    Flashbacks:
    It is better that I have flashbacks about them, then them having flashbacks about me


    USMC RET 1961-1971

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Xader View Post
    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...
    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.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member
    Array Xader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    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.
    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)

  8. #37
    Member Array i10casual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    296
    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.

  9. #38
    Member Array gobbly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    122
    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.

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    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.
    Exactly.

    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.

    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
    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...e-irs-could-be

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array Smitty901's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,288
    It would be nice but no chance, FEDERAL and that is that.

  12. #41
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Yep. ^^

    This is a rule of govt. regulation that is not exactly new nor obscure.
    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.

    The only singular notable exception is and has been the passing last year of revision to allow keeping and carrying of firearms at National Park Service property, but specifically not into said buildings and structures (!).
    Also well discussed here many times in the past recent as well as long ago.

    Federal facilities are always posted as being federal facilities, and along with that there is always prominent display of no weapons signage including but not limited to firearms in specific.

    - Janq
    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.....

    )(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
    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.

  13. #42
    Member Array gigamortis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    258
    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.

  14. #43
    Distinguished Member Array claude clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    ct
    Posts
    1,924
    none of this makes sense anymore to noone (sic)

    so im getting off at Willoughby
    Jollymann likes this.
    Arthritis sucks big-big
    -------------------
    Why do those elected to positions of power than work so hard
    to deny those same opportunities to the same people who empowered them

  15. #44
    Member Array Adameeski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by claude clay View Post
    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.wav


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ...Adam

    "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head." --Winston Churchill

  16. #45
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    I would suggest looking up the word purpose in the dictionary as a start.
    "People who take an Internet handle of a great warrior, are usually the first to go fetal when crunch time comes." - Me

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone know anything about NAGR?
    By UnklFungus in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 31st, 2013, 10:44 PM
  2. Really Bad : Fed Wants To Dismiss Firearm Lawsuit
    By JoJoGunn in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2010, 05:52 PM
  3. Finally!! CCW Permit and New Firearm.
    By SwatMedic338 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 27th, 2010, 09:35 AM

Search tags for this page

carry gun on post office property
,
colorado post office lawsuit concealed carry
,
concealed carry onto federally leased parking lot property
,
firearm in post office
,
firearms on leased federal office parking lot
,
firearms on usps facility grounds
,

nagr

,

nagr post office lawsuit

,
post office gun ban legislation
,
post office gun carry az
,
post office gun lawsuit
,

rmgo parking lot usps

Click on a term to search for related topics.