Me.baseballguy2001 wrote:Someone may have posted this before me, but seriously now, who goes to the post office anymore? I haven't set foot inside one in years.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule”
- Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:53 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule
- Replies: 278
- Views: 127939
Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule
- Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:59 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule
- Replies: 278
- Views: 127939
Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule
That makes too much sense.sugar land dave wrote:Now you have me curious. If you have a CHL why would the lawful purpose of self defense be disallowed? My firearm is an integral part of my self defense plan. I read your description on page 1, but wonder at how such narrow interpretations occur. If plain English is tortured to make it mean something that a common man would not expect, where do we end up? I know that is a hypothetical question, but if the definitions can change just by putting enough Republicans or Democrats in office then English or some facet of its use for law must be wrong.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, it would make all the difference in the world. "Incident to" means it must be an integral part of the activity.switch wrote:OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?
Chas.
The federal tyrants do not care if something makes sense. Infringements are never about making sense. It is all about control. Controlling you, the subject.
Anygunanywhere