TexasCHLforum.com

wheelgun1958 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:Sorry, but I'm still confused. There is a much higher probability of me having to defend myself in a post office than spotting an eight point buck. So, switching "incident to" to "necessary for" still doesn't work for me.

The only things you are going to legally do in a Post Office is 1) buy postage; 2) ship something; or 3) check your post office box. (Yeah, I'm leaving out other postal activities like certified mail, etc.) Carrying a handgun is not "incident to" or "necessary for" any activity you are going to do in the Post Office.

Does this help?

Chas.

Other that self-defense. It may not be an 'activity' but a weapon is 'incident to' self-defense.

If you carry concealed in the Post Office, be sure you engage in self-defense while there, because you can be assured that "thinking about it" is not incident to self-defense. :-)

Elmo

ScottDLS wrote: The statute itself is partially quoted below and contains a definition for "Federal Facility" which supports my statement. Second, in US vs. Dorosan, where a postal employee was convicted for having a gun on post office "property", I noticed that the US attorney amended the information (charging document for a misdemeanor) to replace 18 USC 930 with 39 CFR 232.

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(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.
...
(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.

Tks, Scott. It sure helps to read the whole statute.

Elmo

ScottDLS wrote: 18 USC 930 only applies to Federal Buildings...not property generally.

Scott,

Could I ask for your support for this statement, preferably, of course, in federal law or federal court decision(s)? Please understand that I am not necessarily questioning your statement. I, for unrelated reasons, would be interested in support for your position.

Elmo

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ...There is a great lesson for all activists; don't overstate our case and don't exaggerate the opposition's position. Doing so not only deceives "our people," it hurts our credibility to the vast majority of Americans who are not members of the NRA or the Brady Campaign. I have won a lot of trials because I caught a witness in a lie or an exaggeration. Once you show a jury they can't be trusted, you've taken a giant step toward winning the case, even if the facts are less than favorable for your client....

Chas.

So true, Chas. I have noticed, and occasionally noted publicly here, the poor choice of words here on the forum occasionally which ignore your wise counsel. When I do this I fully expect, and generally receive, slaps on the wrist.

How counterproductive this is to our efforts. I actually went so far some time ago to maintain a compilation of such comments, with the intention of posting the list here and asking the readers to think about how happily it might used by our opponents, even if not used out of context. Of course I concluded this would be a bad idea, given the likelihood that the list would be exposed to the other side. I sometimes cringe at the thought of our opponents on our critical 2A issue monitoring this forum.

Reading the results of a Texas trial just this morning I am once again reminded of the unalterable rule I put in place at my firm back in the day: "At all times assume that anything you put on the Internet will be read by the whole world."

Your words of wisdom are eagerly read and appreciated, Chas.

Elmo