TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Post Office suit was lost in the 10th Circuit. The PO can ban firearms both in the buildings and parking lots. TAB BONIDY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS, Plaintiffs - Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; PATRICK DO-NAHOE, Postmaster General; MICHAEL KERVIN, Acting Postmaster, Avon, Colo-rado, Defendants - Appellants/Cross-Appellees. BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Amicus Curiae.

Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391

Chas.

RPB wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:$440 worth of stamps? Thats 1000 letters. I don't expect to mail that many letters in the rest of my life. And probably my kids life, too.

What 'ya gonna do when the PO goes out of business... Paper your walls with them?

I'll probably put them on the windows so birds won't fly into them :)

markmac56 wrote:Looking at the signs at my post office, I can carry concealed inside...unless, of course there is something that I am unaware of, such as school and courthouses, etc. ..

Post offices sometimes have a teeny tiny sign, took me several trips to locate it, it was about 6"x8" posted 10' high to be seen as you EXIT; and it didn't have the gunbuster picture, but only the text as this one; but still, sign or no sign, it's against these Federal Regulations

I love how they always leave (d)(3) off the sign these days. (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

IANAL but I don't know of any cases where an individual was carrying concealed under the authority of a CHL, CWP, or whatever, which, it seems to me, would be a "lawful purpose" was caught, arrested, and convicted.

That said, when TSA finally deigned to provided us "screeners" with space they laughingly called lockers for us to store our personal stuff in without worrying about theft, one of our less brilliant lights (an engineer by education as well as trade) asked could we store or personal firearms in our lockers. Of course TSA management's response was "No it violates 18USC930" and when (d)(3) was pointed out, they finally came up with "We say it's illegal, therefore it's not a lawful purpose."