TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub

I guess this won't be going any further unless another district says it is unconstitutional, right?

C-dub

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
switch wrote:If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.
You want to equate preparation for an activity with engaging in the activity. They are distinctly different actions.

Being prepared to defend yourself is not "engaging in self-defense." I have a fire extinguisher in my home, but I'm not engaged in fighting a fire "24-7." I'm not engaging in fighting a fire until I pull the pin and start putting out a fire. I have anti-acid in my medicine cabinet in case I need it, but I'm not engaging in treating heartburn "24-7."

Chas.

That's where I was going with that too. I haven't read this thread for a few weeks and you beat me to it by almost a week. Preparing and being actively engaged in the act of self defense are very different indeed.

C-dub

Jumping Frog wrote:
C-dub wrote:Interesting. Who is exactly is doing the insisting here?
MEPS – Military Entrance Processing Station

So, the military, local police, or some other hired security personnel? I understand the MEPS thing, but since they are not the only one's in the building I wasn't sure who was providing the "security."

C-dub

Iunnrais wrote:S'ok. Try going to the post office that's in the old Customs Building in downtown Houston. It also houses the local MEPS center and once you step through the door, you are required to empty your pockets into the x-ray bin, go through the metal detector, get wanded just as if you were going through airport security.

Our oldest swore into the Army monday and while we were waiting for her to come down after the ceremony, I took some of the younger kids outside. Poked my head back inside about 10 mins later to see if the wife knew when the oldest was coming down and the nice officers told me that I was required to be searched again before I could step back outside (just stepped right inside the door). They were quite insistent that once you cross the threshold of the building, you _will_ submit to a search and not be allowed to turn around and go back outside.

Interesting. Who is exactly is doing the insisting here? I'm up near Dallas and don't know this building.

C-dub

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I wish them luck too, but they sure played fast and loose with 18 U.S.C. 930(c) when they state The law cited by the Post Office creates an exception for “lawful carrying of firearms” for “other lawful purposes." NAGR left out two very important words "incident to." (The Code Section in question is quoted below.) The subpart (c) exception to the general rule against carrying firearms in federal facilities applies to firearms that are "incident to" lawful hunting or other lawful purposes. We can replace the words "incident to" with "necessary for" and you get a clearer picture.

This bold part is why I thought that.

C-dub

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
C-dub wrote:Charles, I totally believe you and have no doubt that I would end up in Club Fed if I were caught carrying a handgun in a post office. The part I'm confused about is the difference between hunting and self defense. Are you saying that I could carry a rifle into a post office to buy some stamps or pick up a package that required a signature and I would be legal? Would I have to prove that I was going hunting when the police showed up? I'm not going to do this, but I'm trying to understand the logic here.
No, I'm saying you cannot carry any firearm or dangerous weapon into a Post Office. You cannot hunt in a Post Office so the "hunting" exception is not applicable to Post Offices.

Chas.

Okay. I must have misunderstood before. I thought it was said that a rifle was an exception because it was "incident to" hunting, but I couldn't figure out how one could be hunting in a post office.

C-dub

ScottDLS wrote: - Carrying a rifle in the post office isn't generally legal because it isn't incident to hunting. In what post office are you going to be (engaged in) hunting?
- Carrying a pistol in a post office isn't legal because it isn't incident to defending yourself, unless you are actually engaged in defending yourself at the time (i.e. drawing down on the bad guy, shooting him, etc.).

That first one was my question several posts back in this thread. I agree.
The second one I understand, but don't necessarily agree with, but that's okay.

I thought that it was explained that it was okay to carrying a gun for hunting because that was an exception. Did I misunderstand?

C-dub

Charles, I totally believe you and have no doubt that I would end up in Club Fed if I were caught carrying a handgun in a post office. The part I'm confused about is the difference between hunting and self defense. Are you saying that I could carry a rifle into a post office to buy some stamps or pick up a package that required a signature and I would be legal? Would I have to prove that I was going hunting when the police showed up? I'm not going to do this, but I'm trying to understand the logic here.

C-dub

Yes, but I thought you meant that this exception made a weapon normally used for hunting okay. Excluding other statutes that make carrying any gun in a PO illegal, of course.

C-dub

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.

C-dub

Always funny, but also scary. Happens several times a year around the country. If one were in a PO when something like this happened a gun might also be needed for self defense. There are also cases where a wild animal has attacked a person inside of a building.

C-dub

Oh, I'm not disputing that is illegal, but I don't understand the exception as Charles explained it.

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes

How can one be actively engaged in hunting while inside a PO? My point is that no one can be actively engaged in hunting any more than one can actively be engaged in self defense in a PO. And actually, after thinking about it for a few seconds, the need to defend one's self would be much more plausible than hunting in a PO.

C-dub

I'm still curious how someone could be actively engaged in hunting in a PO. Even after Charles' explanation of "incident to" I still don't see the distinction between hunting and defending one's self in a PO. Saying that no one goes into a PO actively defending themselves can also be said of hunting. What would I be actively hunting in a PO?

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 13 matches

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule

Re: Post Office Law Suit to Repeal Carry Rule