Page 1 of 2
Hate to rehash the Post Office thing but...
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:33 am
by kauboy
What do you guys think of
this article.?
He makes some very valid points and I for one can't find anything wrong with it. And yes, I did read the actual law and not just take his word for it. Please follow the links he provides so that you can see the laws themselves too.
It would seem that the Federal law supports a lawful CHL holders ability to carry in a post office.
Any comments???
Re: Hate to rehash the Post Office thing but...
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:55 am
by txinvestigator
kauboy wrote:What do you guys think of
this article.?
He makes some very valid points and I for one can't find anything wrong with it. And yes, I did read the actual law and not just take his word for it. Please follow the links he provides so that you can see the laws themselves too.
It would seem that the Federal law supports a lawful CHL holders ability to carry in a post office.
Any comments???
And the worms crawl out of that bag;
This has been discussed here a lot. Run a search for some interesting reading.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:58 am
by kauboy
I'm really just looking for personal opinion on this particular article. I've done the reading and have seen lots of interpretations, but this seems to leave the interpretation to the exact law.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:14 pm
by Roger Howard
Yes, the law say's "lawful purpose" but there has not been a case to set precident. some carry there, some don't.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:18 pm
by stevie_d_64
If I recall...
Is it that little subsection (d) that gets you???
thats where the "lawful purposes" is isn't it???
I don't much worry about this anymore...
I can count on one hand how many times I've been to the PO in the last 6-7 years...
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:34 pm
by GlockenHammer
I'm sure one of the attorneys on this forum will respond, but it basically comes down to this...there has never been a test case on this point. The author of the article might be right. He might be wrong. Would you like to be the test case?
Here's my fear. The Feds know/think they can't make your rap stick, but they can cause you untold dollars in legal fees before they drop the case. All of that is said and done and you have still not set a precedent for anyone else since your case did not proceed far enough.
They hold all of the cards. My plan is to not piss them off and support the NRA as best I can.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:53 pm
by casselthief
my opinion: why chance it. you're not going to get held up at a P.O.
I mean, you should be worried more about the postal workers shootin' the place up than joe shmoe. I mean, with all the cameras, guards, and stuff like that, I wouldn't worry too much.
besides, don't say nuttin' about takin' yer pepper spray keychain, right?
or you could just throw your shoe!!!

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:01 pm
by kauboy
casselthief wrote:I mean, you should be worried more about the postal workers shootin' the place up than joe shmoe.
Uh, I don't want this happening either.

It would only seem logical to be able to defend myself from all possible threats, shmoe or otherwise. Thats why I'm getting the CHL in the first place.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:06 pm
by casselthief
I feel ya.
I'm just saying, there are alternatives for those special cases.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:08 pm
by kauboy
I hear ya, but I'm not sure I'd want to take a chance with my pepper spray against their gun, but thats just me.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:08 pm
by carlson1
Alternative is to make sure you keep it concealed.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:10 pm
by kauboy
Bingo

Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:07 pm
by casselthief
carlson1 wrote:Alternative is to make sure you keep it concealed.
sure. keep it concealed until that guy comes busting in and you blow a hole throw his cerebellum.
then how concealed will it be?
I trust me, I hear you on this. Heck, I'd sleep with my head on the damn thing if the holster was a little more comfy, but there are certain situations you have to look at and say, "you know, I really don't think this is a situation that I need to carry."
and you know, hey, if you feel adament (read as: paranoid) about it, go ahead. I can't say I blame you.
let me relate this quick story, and then I'll leave it be.
I work at a hospital, and a guy comes walkin' in cafeteria while I'm munching down on some tastey viddles. as this guy walks by, he's scratching his back (or some such nonsense) and accidentally ejects the magazine from his pistol. that thing landed with a metallic clank, and everyone in the cafeteria turned and looked.
I, myself, laughed, but it goes to show, even accidentally you can "reveal" your hidden secret.
now I'm sure no one here is that paranoid, nor that clumsy as to drop a loaded magazine, but still, you get the point.
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:24 am
by kauboy
Well luckily in Texas that wouldn't matter for squat. A mag falling to the floor is not "intentionally failing to conceal". You are only called on to conceal the gun itself. I know, to some, it could become abruptly apparent that you have a gun if this happened in a post office, but as stated in the article, its apparently legal. Just keep the
gun hidden.

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:30 am
by casselthief
good times. thanks for the update.
I'm still gonna throw my shoe, though....
