Related but different to the post office lawsuit

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Related but different to the post office lawsuit

#1

Post by E.Marquez »

Perhaps my Googlefu is lacking these days

But is anybody ever seen a lawsuit against the US government somewhat like the post office one currently but US military location specifically.
No longer a military member retired and a civilian yet my Second Amendment rights are denied me when I have to go on post

Would this not be something capable of being decided in court?

Or perhaps if it ever comes to fruition a successful locket suit against the post office would do the same for military post S
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com

jason812
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:41 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Related but different to the post office lawsuit

#2

Post by jason812 »

I have wondered if the Bill of Rights are rules for the government to follow, how can the government violate the Bill of Rights on government property? My way of thinking is that you should be able to carry on all federal property. If the property is of vital national security and the government thinks you need to be disarmed, then maybe there should be armed agents.
In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law to pursue a natural justice.

WildRose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:30 am

Re: Related but different to the post office lawsuit

#3

Post by WildRose »

jason812 wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:48 pm I have wondered if the Bill of Rights are rules for the government to follow, how can the government violate the Bill of Rights on government property? My way of thinking is that you should be able to carry on all federal property. If the property is of vital national security and the government thinks you need to be disarmed, then maybe there should be armed agents.
There's nobody more uptight about controlling access to firearms and ammo than base/post commanders.
NRA Life Member NRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO,
USCCA Certified Instructor
TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor.
Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”