TexasCHLforum.com

Woman stabbed in Andrews Post Office parking lot, two LTC holders detain and hold suspect for police.

https://www.newswest9.com/mobile/articl ... c34a2aba05

Yet another horribly written news report.

There were not two men with "licensed handguns." There were two men with "license to carry handguns."

Where did the two men intervene, in the post office parking lot or across the street at Allsup's where the woman ran after being stabbed?

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:06 am Yet another horribly written news report.

There were not two men with "licensed handguns." There were two men with "license to carry handguns."

Where did the two men intervene, in the post office parking lot or across the street at Allsup's where the woman ran after being stabbed?

My questions as well when I read the report... Since it's a PO, some of those details and response really matter for our purposes.

I'm so glad Everytown for Gun Safety is working hard to stop LTC's from having "shall issue" licenses, national reciprocity, and full capacity magazines:

Everytown has filed amicus curiae briefs in support of New Jersey's high-capacity magazine ban[39] and California's may-issue permitting law.[40] A brief was filed challenging Florida's state preemption law against local firearm ordinances.[41]

If Everytown had their way they might have been able to stop this apprehension of a violent criminal

This article has basically the same info, but the way it is written indicates that LTCers were holding the assailant in the PO parking lot (where the police responded and arrested the assailant), and the woman was across the street.

https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/Andre ... 88451.html

being held at gunpoint by two bystanders.

So it's ok to carry on PO property if you need the gun, but not otherwise. Duly noted.


-Sarcasm off-

If local police can ignore federal ICE warrants for people arrested locally for committing further crimes, I don't see a problem with local police ignoring the USPS rules when the good guys choose the lesser of two wrongs.

I was curious and googled the guy being held at gunpoint. Prior to this event he has three other arrests THIS YEAR, for parole violation, terroristic threat causing fear of SBI, and -- just last week -- public intoxication.

His life is not on an upward arc and he's only 21.

Surprised the good guys were not arrested for carrying in a gun free zone. Should give them at least 10 years in prison.

rotor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:16 am Surprised the good guys were not arrested for carrying in a gun free zone. Should give them at least 10 years in prison.

Since this would be federal jurisdiction, could local police even arrest them or would it require postal inspector or FPS?

TX PC 9.22

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Also... https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... fense.html

jmorris wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:48 am

rotor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:16 am Surprised the good guys were not arrested for carrying in a gun free zone. Should give them at least 10 years in prison.

Since this would be federal jurisdiction, could local police even arrest them or would it require postal inspector or FPS?

I was not really serious about the good guys being arrested and your question is a good one. Technically though since it was on federal property could the local police even arrest the bad guy or would that require federal officers?

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:18 pm TX PC 9.22

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Also... https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... fense.html

This too is interesting as it discusses Texas law which is not binding on Federal property. Hypothetically though, let's say the good guys parked their cars off of PO property, saw the attack going on, ran to their cars off PO property and retrieved their firearms (or possibly saw the whole thing going down as they drove by), then by necessity I guess it would be alright to intervene as some kind of good samaritan.

I am not supporting PO gun free zones and I think the laws are stupid but think of the intellectual arguments one can make of this.