TexasCHLforum.com

OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?

switch wrote:OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?

Yes, it would make all the difference in the world. "Incident to" means it must be an integral part of the activity.

Chas.

Thanks. I did not know/understand that definition. :( My bad.

Well, looks like I don't have to worry about the parking lot any longer....

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic ... t-20130711" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is great!!!

Doest this mean I can sit in the truck in the parking lot armed while my wife checks the mail? (We have a P.O. Box)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

switch wrote:OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?

Yes, it would make all the difference in the world. "Incident to" means it must be an integral part of the activity.

Chas.

Now you have me curious. If you have a CHL why would the lawful purpose of self defense be disallowed? My firearm is an integral part of my self defense plan. I read your description on page 1, but wonder at how such narrow interpretations occur. If plain English is tortured to make it mean something that a common man would not expect, where do we end up? I know that is a hypothetical question, but if the definitions can change just by putting enough Republicans or Democrats in office then English or some facet of its use for law must be wrong.

sugar land dave wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

switch wrote:OK, the law reads: (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. Not sure what 'incident to' means or applies to.
What if it was worded '... for any lawful purposes or incident to hunting.' Would that make any difference?

Yes, it would make all the difference in the world. "Incident to" means it must be an integral part of the activity.

Chas.

Now you have me curious. If you have a CHL why would the lawful purpose of self defense be disallowed? My firearm is an integral part of my self defense plan. I read your description on page 1, but wonder at how such narrow interpretations occur. If plain English is tortured to make it mean something that a common man would not expect, where do we end up? I know that is a hypothetical question, but if the definitions can change just by putting enough Republicans or Democrats in office then English or some facet of its use for law must be wrong.

That makes too much sense.

The federal tyrants do not care if something makes sense. Infringements are never about making sense. It is all about control. Controlling you, the subject.

Anygunanywhere

That make three of us!!!

I'm not trying to stir controversy, just was curious.

I remember a time when Republicans and Democrats worked together for the good of the people and the country. Sometime about twenty years ago, that idea of building a future together went away in favor of uncompromising demographics. I don't think that was progress we can be proud of. I'm Republican, but my wife is a Democrat, so I practice what I preach.

Common sense needs to become common again, and ideologues need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

I will repeat my simple argument in favor of my human rights recognized by the Founding Fathers. Why should the actions of a handful of people deprive 300 million people of ANY freedom previously enjoyed; why should the terrible deaths of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of our citizens cancel out the sacrifice of my father and other veterans who fought wars where hundreds of thousands were killed just to protect my rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... by_country" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am thankful that we have a few good men, lawyers like Charles who fight for us and the preservation and recovery of rights, but there need to be more, and I don't know how we are going to find them.

sugar land dave wrote:
I remember a time when Republicans and Democrats worked together for the good of the people and the country. Sometime about twenty years ago, that idea of building a future together went away in favor of uncompromising demographics. I don't think that was progress we can be proud of. I'm Republican, but my wife is a Democrat, so I practice what I preach.

Common sense needs to become common again, and ideologues need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

I'm with you. I like to say if you're blaming the other party, you've got it 50% right.
And there is the constant name calling on this forum. Dummycrats... Sure, that helps us all see it through your eyes. It helps us all understand why the Democratic party is flawed. And the other side is just as bad.
It seems like lies travel much farther much faster than the truth. Everything is twisted.
And people are so polar.. It seems like everyone has one issue that they're not willing to even talk about compromising and everything else gets ignored.

Behind the scenes, in both parties.. it's the money that drives the real decisions.

I found an interesting article for this topic.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/09/ ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There has been no change in the law regarding the parking lot of the USPS offices. It is still illegal to carry there or even have your gun locked in a parked car. The recent case with a ruling that justified it was very nuanced and case specific. I can be used as a precedent, but it does not preemptively affect the current law.

[Pre-paid legal service] still instructs to park elsewhere to lock the gun in the car and then walk to the post office.

ATDM wrote: [Pre-paid legal service] still instructs to park elsewhere to lock the gun in the car and then walk to the post office.

If that's the case, then [Pre-paid legal service] is a bunch of idiots.
Why would I intentionally park farther away from where I need to go, and walk a longer distance unarmed than I have to?

RossA wrote: If that's the case, then [Pre-paid legal service] is a bunch of idiots.
Why would I intentionally park farther away from where I need to go, and walk a longer distance unarmed than I have to?

[Pre-paid legal service] did not make the law, they are simply instructing their clients to follow it. Of course, it's inconvenient for all of us. Of course, it's a dumb and unconstitutional law. However, it is still the law, and it is [Pre-paid legal service] lawyers' job to instruct in accordance with the law, not in accordance with what's fair.