MT:Tester shows true regard for gun rights in Post Office bill committee meeting

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 7 February, 2014 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

Crowing about a setback for gun rights advocates, the Michael Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action issued a press release Thursday expressing their pleasure that “the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected an NRA-backed measure today that would have allowed concealed, loaded guns to be carried in post offices.”

The rejoicing is hardly unexpected, although it is curious for a group spreading the insulting “going postal” myth that they’d be silent on recent news that “The United States Postal Service intends to solicit proposals for assorted small arms ammunition.” Still, the “victory” for the Bloomberg Moms (BMs) is only partial.

“A Senate committee unanimously passed a measure Thursday to allow people to carry guns on postal service property, but killed a broader push to let gun owners carry their firearms into actual post office buildings,” The Washington Times reported yesterday. That means once the measure becomes law, people won’t need to be defenseless driving to or from the Post Office, but will still be mandated helpless if they have business inside.

“Mr. Paul’s amendment failed on a 9-6 vote,” the report explained.

At this writing, the Committee website and other resources like the Library of Congress THOMAS and the GovTrack legislative tracking websites do not give a breakdown of the vote, and the volume and camera placement on the session video makes identifying by voice votes problematic. This columnist requested clarification from Sen. Paul’s office, which replied “All Dem members of the committee voted against the Paul Amendment. All Rs except Portman (who did not vote on any of the amendments) voted for it.”

[marktwain]

The ban on the carry of guns in post offices is a direct attack on the second amendment. The Democrats are resisting it because it is embematic of their whole scheme to gradually make the exercise of the constitutional right of being armed socially unacceptable. It it is accepted, as is only reasonable, that a law abiding citizen can be legally armed in a post office, then why should she be barred from within a thousand feet of a school? All of their stupid non-arguments are falling apart.

Tester makes no sense. When it came to choosing the second amendment and the constitution, or loyalty to the Democrat party machine, the Democrats party machine won.

[KoRn]

I’ve never allowed a sign on a door or some man made law prevent me from carrying a concealed weapon anywhere I prefer.

After all, if it’s concealed no one knows its there, and if a situation arises to where it needs to come out, I’m not going to give a bit of damn about what the law or anyone thinks about it, because something very bad is obviously going on. (better to be tried by twelve than carried by six in such cases)

[Yo-Yo]

It isn’t the banning of concealed carry inside the post office that bothers me (well, ok it does bother me but whatever) as much as is the banning of parking lot storage at the post office that really bugs me.

Ban carry inside the building, fine. At least make it leagal for me to remove my CCW and lock it in the car vault before I go in.

Come to think of it, when was the last time I stepped inside a post office anyway? Screw ‘em, I don’t go there anyway.

[secondamendmentkid]

I agree totally with your comments. However, I do have to go to the post office occasionally and get concerned about the parking lot issue as well. If the post office is on leased property, does the parking lot ban still legally apply? Anyone know the answer to that?

[ansel12]

I will soon be living where my mailbox is inside the Post Office and the vast majority of the time, I will be on foot when I go there, this change is important to me.