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; Originally Posted by Beans Throwing in monkey wrench. I spent 26 years as an Investigator for the Nevada State Contractor board. Federal property, that is ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 47 of 47
Like Tree9Likes

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

  1. #46
    Ex Member Array Jollymann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Beans View Post
    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 might as well add here that in Arizona, it appears to be common knowledge that the post office prohibition doesn't apply regardless of signs. From what I saw of the law concerning the post offices, it only has to do with having a “criminal intention”, or the like, and not simply carrying a gun. Furthermore, from what I understand most of the post offices are leased not owned, so that means it’s not federal property like a base or an IRS office. I was asking about all of this from one of the Arizona Citizens Defense League officers I’d had some correspondence with. At first I’d taken it off here. After being informed of the above I completely stopped taking it off. Also from what has been explained, it’s normal for open carry guys here to walk in be in line and have no problems with post office reactions or police harassment or threat. In other words, guys who legally carry here, both with a permit, not with a permit (Constitutional Carry), concealed and not concealed, carry loaded guns in the Post Offices. It's the way I've done it too, so I've been banking on it.

    D.M. Jolly

    P.S. If it is really federal property, the signs are totally differnet than the ordinary type "no guns" signs you see in the post office. I think everyone has noticed that difference too.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Ex Member Array Jollymann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    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.
    I am really glad some one else is on the same page as me on this. This relates to what I just posted about. It was this 18 USC 930 that my coorspondence friend at the time was refering to. For me, this refreshes my presumtions about it. This is probably exactly why no one has been charged with a crime for carrying guns in the post office. I'd have to say that yeah packing a gun for self-defense either with a necessary permit in some states, or without one, either open carry or concealed in a state where it's not necesarry to have a permit (or a license), would be "another lawful purpose".

    Check!

    DMJ

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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.