TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:Why don't we close this thread

Wouldn't it be easier for you to stop clicking on threads you don't want to read?

boomerang wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Why don't we close this thread

Wouldn't it be easier for you to stop clicking on threads you don't want to read?

What if you are approached in a Post Office parking lot, but the people approaching have CHL badges?

ScottDLS wrote:What if you are approached in a Post Office parking lot, but the people approaching have CHL badges?

It's OK if you're there to pick up a pink Glock.

boomerang wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:What if you are approached in a Post Office parking lot, but the people approaching have CHL badges?

It's OK if you're there to pick up a pink Glock.

Funny you mentioned that. I wondered if I was in violation when I picked up that gun today. It was concealed in the shipping box. Of course it was unloaded... but concealed just the same. I think it is legal for a gun repair service to ship the gun direct to you after they have done repairs on it. Ruger did the same thing. Shipped it directly to me after repairing it. Kahr did the same when my son had them work on his P380. Technically, when I sell a rifle on Gun Broker I am allowed to ship it to a FFL. When I do this I am concealing a rifle in the box. Weird how that works. I always tell them it is a rifle, and 50% of the time I have to listen to the Postal employee flip out.

A bit off topic but this thread seems to have gone into a couple different directions at this point anyway.

chabouk wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:He has definitely stirred the pot here and has sometimes been a bit...antagonistic?

Yes, but in this thread it was his pot being stirred, by someone who does a lot of that and gets away with it.

Interesting. Quite frankly, you insinuating that you feel there are folks who deserve to be banned is in itself an atagonistic post. I have no idea why he got banned but I will bet dollars to donuts it was not for being antagonistic. This is a public forum and if you post a story expecting everyone to agree with how you handled yourself, you will probably be disapointed. How one get's banned around here is by disrespecting the mods when they ask you to tone it down.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

boomerang wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:What if you are approached in a Post Office parking lot, but the people approaching have CHL badges?

It's OK if you're there to pick up a pink Glock.

Funny you mentioned that. I wondered if I was in violation when I picked up that gun today. It was concealed in the shipping box. Of course it was unloaded... but concealed just the same. I think it is legal for a gun repair service to ship the gun direct to you after they have done repairs on it. Ruger did the same thing. Shipped it directly to me after repairing it. Kahr did the same when my son had them work on his P380. Technically, when I sell a rifle on Gun Broker I am allowed to ship it to a FFL. When I do this I am concealing a rifle in the box. Weird how that works. I always tell them it is a rifle, and 50% of the time I have to listen to the Postal employee flip out.

A bit off topic but this thread seems to have gone into a couple different directions at this point anyway.

The postal carry topic is one that has been discussed at length here, but I believe with little attention to the underlying law/regulation. Since this thread is not focused on it, I will just propose:

My opinion is...Your sending or receiving firearms through the US mail in accordance with federal law and US postal regulations is unlikely to raise any significant issues under US or Texas law.

Obviously my previous post was an attempt at humor, which seems to have been lost in this thread, but I always throw a bit of legitimate CHL content in my jokes. I don't just do a "I agree" sign to boost my post count. Even if I post a smart alack comment, I've got a bit of content in it.

Having read your (copious) posts, I believe you are engaging in the same spirit. Cool. I don't think polite and occasionally lighthearted discussion detracts from this community.

------
Now, If I really want a full discussion of Post Office carry, I'll start a(nother) thread. I did a post a few weeks ago where I dug very deeply into the US Code and CFR.

ScottDLS wrote:

Obviously my previous post was an attempt at humor, which seems to have been lost in this thread, but I always throw a bit of legitimate CHL content in my jokes. I don't just do a "I agree" sign to boost my post count. Even if I post a smart alack comment, I've got a bit of content in it.

Having read your (copious) posts, I believe you are engaging in the same spirit. Cool. I don't think polite and occasionally lighthearted discussion detracts from this community.

------
Now, If I really want a full discussion of Post Office carry, I'll start a(nother) thread. I did a post a few weeks ago where I dug very deeply into the US Code and CFR.

03Lightningrocks wrote: This is a public forum and if you post a story expecting everyone to agree with how you handled yourself, you will probably be disapointed.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Quite frankly, you insinuating that you feel there are folks who deserve to be banned is in itself an atagonistic post.

I have not insinuated anyone should be banned, merely wondered aloud at the seeming disparity.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote: In this case though, I thought his one BIG mistake was letting these guys get in close before he ascertained who they were.

You're trying to suck me in, aren't you? Not gonna work

<kicks dirt>
Yeeeeaaah.
</kicks dirt>

Dragonfighter wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: You're trying to suck me in, aren't you? Not gonna work

<kicks dirt>
Yeeeeaaah.
</kicks dirt>

Now THAT'S funny!