TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:Charles,

This has been asked a couple times in this thread, but I have not seen an answer. If I can carry a it won't handgun as long as it is "incident to" an otherwise lawful activity that I would do in that location, then wouldn't the following logic hold up?

A. Carrying a gun is incident to the activity of concealed carry

B. Concealed carry is an otherwise lawful activity in that location (assume a valid CHL, etc)

Therefore, my conclusion would be that I can carry a concealed handgun which is incident to my otherwise lawful activity of carrying concealed in that location.

I'm sure something is missing here. Not challenging, just curious to see where this line of thought breaks down.

Thanks!

In essence, this would be saying that "I'm carrying a handgun incident to carrying a handgun." It's circular reasoning and it won't work in court. Plus, carrying a handgun in a Post Office is not a lawful activity, so your presumption in subpart B is invalid. You would not be "carrying a gun . . . incident to" a lawful activity in a Post Office.

It is a two-step inquiry.

• Question 1: Is the activity you want to do in the post office legal? ("other lawful activity")
  Question 2: Is a firearm required for this activity? ("incident to").

If the answer to either question is "no," then the exception in 18 U.S.C. 930(4)(3) is not available.

Chas.

That makes sense (unfortunately). Thanks.

On a side note, I just saw where the new House plans to read the full US Constitution on the floor to start the new Congress. I may need to tune in and watch that! The puzzled looks on the faces of (some of) our elected representatives should be interesting.

here's a copy of the document involved in the motion to dismiss from last week: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45607414/Boni ... to-Dismiss

I was just wondering if any moderator was interested in making this case a separate sticky with updates on it? The case is "Bonidy v USPS". That way, we could read the motions the arguments and the judge's ruling .

I think next will be the judge's ruling on whether or not to throw it out.

Sure, I'll make it a sticky until the case is over.

Chas.

I don't know if there's a separate sticky, but here's what I have found out so far--

The case number is: 10-cv-02408. You can find the court here:http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/

It is being handled by Richard P. Matsch, who is a senior judge in the Colorado District Court. He is the judge who presided over the Timothy McVeigh case.

From what I read, he's a fair judge, and knows his law.

His calendar for the week is full, so this case is not on it neither for this week, nor next week.

there is a motion to dismiss filed by the DOJ. Here is the motion:http://www.scribd.com/doc/45607414/Boni ... to-Dismiss

Just waiting on Judge Matsch's decision on the motion.

Are the courts going to find ALL government property is a SENSITIVE location? I was hoping that someone would interpret sensitive buildings to be places that store nuclear weapons or some similar threshold, not post office lobbies.

Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that“laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and governmentbuildings,” like the USPS regulation at issue here, are “presumptively lawful.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17 (2008). Relying on Heller, the Courts of Appeals,including the Tenth Circuit, have uniformly held that regulatory measures like the USPSregulation do not violate, or even implicate, the Second Amendment

Texgun wrote:Are the courts going to find ALL government property is a SENSITIVE location? I was hoping that someone would interpret sensitive buildings to be places that store nuclear weapons or some similar threshold, not post office lobbies.

Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that“laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and governmentbuildings,” like the USPS regulation at issue here, are “presumptively lawful.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17 (2008). Relying on Heller, the Courts of Appeals,including the Tenth Circuit, have uniformly held that regulatory measures like the USPSregulation do not violate, or even implicate, the Second Amendment

The current assumption, as explained to the Federal workforce, is already as you stated: ALL Federal government property is "National Treasure," since those assets serve the purpose of the United States and its citizens. As such, it is all sensitive, and, moreover, is owned by all US citizens. Somewhere, years ago, the decision was made that "weapons" were prohibited (including cans of gasoline) on Federal property in order to safeguard the national assets.

ETA: Exceptions may be made (for prior-use, for example), such as in the National Forests, where firearms are "incident to" a recognized acceptable activity. However, use of campfires or other incendiary devices may be restricted, to protect the obvious assets.

I'm not giving my opinion here of how appropriate this logic is, but am relating the foundation of the current regulations. As to whether USPS property is truly "Federal property," I also have questioned since USPS was transferred to its current status as a federally-funded contractor (in effect).

Here's my expectation: The status quo would indicate that USPS is on Federally-purchased property, thus no different from JSC or the Capitol Building in D.C. The USC 930 restrictions would apply. Otherwise, USPS would be no different from USA or Boeing, when they're using their own facilities, where the property is under their own rules (which do not have to be any more favorable to CCW than USPS rules today). I suspect that the former will be the USPS argument, and would expect the decision to be in their favor.

I wonder if the case will broach the subject of the USPS being essentially a contractor for the government. I think it would have to, to validate their claims.

I think UPS oughtta take over their business, anyway. That, or the PO get another business model.

Gun control act of 1968 brings us this:

Chapter 44. Firearms

(Title18, U.S. Code, Sections 921-929)

PURPOSE

SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

So....with the purpose in mind, does this alter 930?

Also, Bonidy's attorney claims that 39 CFR 232.1(l) "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2819.

Jasonw560 wrote:Gun control act of 1968 brings us this:

Chapter 44. Firearms

(Title18, U.S. Code, Sections 921-929)

PURPOSE

SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

So....with the purpose in mind, does this alter 930?

Also, Bonidy's attorney claims that 39 CFR 232.1(l) "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2819.

I can buy stamps elsewhere, but I'm praying it (that argument and case) spills over onto USACE thousands and thousands of acres of wild land and waters I would like to go fishing on and I currently pay taxes to stock those lakes with fish, but am denied entrance because I won't go unprotected, and the unarmed Park Ranger is too far away to shoot his pepper spray at the rattlesnake or wild boar desiring to shred my legs.

Deleted

sjfcontrol wrote:I wonder if the lawsuit will outlast the USPS? They have been of questionable usefulness for some time. NOBODY mails letters anymore. Few people receive or pay bills by mail. It's just a way to deliver junk you don't want anyway.

One word for you:
Netflix

LAYGO wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I wonder if the lawsuit will outlast the USPS? They have been of questionable usefulness for some time. NOBODY mails letters anymore. Few people receive or pay bills by mail. It's just a way to deliver junk you don't want anyway.

One word for you:
Netflix

Many people are reducing the number of mailed discs for their subscription and increasing their online viewing, with computer or game console or roku box, because of the new prices.

LAYGO wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I wonder if the lawsuit will outlast the USPS? They have been of questionable usefulness for some time. NOBODY mails letters anymore. Few people receive or pay bills by mail. It's just a way to deliver junk you don't want anyway.

One word for you:
Netflix

The other thing they tend to get right is flat rate; for about $6 I can send a flat-rate small box that gets to nearly anywhere in 3-4 business days, pay online, print the label, and send it from my mailbox just like a letter at no extra charge. UPS ground 3-day service tends to cost about double that for a 1-pound package, plus $5-6 if I want them to pick it up from my house.

Ameer wrote:

LAYGO wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I wonder if the lawsuit will outlast the USPS? They have been of questionable usefulness for some time. NOBODY mails letters anymore. Few people receive or pay bills by mail. It's just a way to deliver junk you don't want anyway.

One word for you:
Netflix

Many people are reducing the number of mailed discs for their subscription and increasing their online viewing, with computer or game console or roku box, because of the new prices.

Oh, I love the Instant Queue as well, but there are somethings not available Instant.