Posted on 03/15/2016 6:53:41 AM PDT by marktwain
Donald Trump is the current front runner in the Republican primaries. He is also the most outspoken about Second Amendment rights, especially if you consider his surrogate, Donald Trump Jr. Ted Cruz is the second most outspoken Second Amendment supporter, and in second place. That is not a coincidence.
The two candidates positions on the Second Amendment are fairly close. Trump's support is the most intense Constitutional issue that he has. Ted Cruz has a longer record of Constitutional clarity, and Cruz submitted an amicus brief on the part of 31 states in the Heller decision.
President Cruz should eliminate the ban on arms (including firearms) in the public areas of the post office.
Elimination of the Post Office ban can solidify his Second Amendment credentials. It is already a popular position in Congress. It could be implemented by executive action, though legislative solidification of the regulation would be more permanent.
The ban makes no sense. Its purposes seem to be to ensnare otherwise law abiding citizens, to make the theft of guns from cars in post office parking lots simpler, and to make life more difficult for people exercising their Second Amendment rights. There is no reason to ban legally armed people from post offices. If they can be trusted everywhere else, why ban them from post offices?
The history of the ban seems to be part of the long, bureaucratic war on the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The first post office ban was on the shipment of pistols through the post office. It was part of the general hysteria against immigrants and minorities in the 1920s, when the Clan was active.
The point was to force pistols to travel through local retailers, where local controls could keep them out of the hands of the groups who were not trusted. If you bothered to obtain a Federal Firearms License for a dollar, they could be sent to you through the mail. Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) can still send pistols through the mail today, to other FFLs.
The second part of the Post office ban came from internal regulation. It stated that firearms could not be carried into the Post Office unless the person was carrying the gun for hunting or other lawful purposes. A general ban on federal employees (or anyone) carrying any weapons in federal buildings completed the ban. It was now applied to everyone and every weapon, except for those expressly allowed.
The Post Office ban was challenged in federal court in 2013, partly struck down, then upheld by the 10th Circuit. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz attempted to force the issue in the Senate in 2014.
A President Cruz could eliminate the ban with an executive finding that the public areas of Post Offices are not "sensitive" parts of government buildings where the Second Amendment can be overridden. Anyone can come and go from the public areas. They are not secretive military reservations or federal prisons. There are no security guards.
Either President Cruz or Trump could make such a move. There are now 14 million or more permit holders in the United States. That does not include the millions without permits that live in the 8-10 states (depending on how you apply the definitions) where no permit is required to carry a weapon for self defense. This is a voting block that is personally affected by this irrational regulation on a regular basis; it include more than just Republicans. These people vote with great regularity.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
Either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump could gain from making this part of their platform.
Concealed means concealed.
Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Remember, the ban on firearms in the PO is not because of customers but because of PO employees. “Going Postal” doesn’t refer to crazed customers.
Eliminate funding of the PO.
More dogs will be shot......
You’re correct. Cruz was unable to stop the GOPe and Dems in many of their efforts. On the other hand, Trumps money spent supporting those Cruz was standing up to seems to have paid off.
Along with Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS, EPA, DOE, IRS, etc,etc,etc,etc...
If these guys are waiting for President Cruz the Post Offices will remain gun free for a long time
"The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters." - Wikipedia
Post office will be the last department standing. They have pensions paid for people not born yet. They are very smart economically.
“If these guys are waiting for President Cruz the Post Offices will remain gun free for a long time”
I would be just as pleased if President Trump does it.
He could as easily make it part of his platform.
14 million plus people would be very pleased.
“Post office will be the last department standing. They have pensions paid for people not born yet. They are very smart economically.”
And, they are one of the few bureaucracies mentioned in the Constitution.
Pretty sure it's illegal to have the gun in your car in the post office parking lot, as well.
I believe the parking lot has to have prominent signage; most that I see do not have it.
Technically, the courts have ruled that the Post Office can ban the exercise of the Second Amendment there.
The way libs project, I figure they have urges to get out and start shooting, due to their suppressed anger at life.
The insane “school zone ban” has always been designed to make the exercise of Second Amendment rights logistically so difficult as to be prohibitive.
It should be repealed. It is very bad law.
They don't need signage. Private businesses do, but the feds don't have to play by the same rules. Just one more example of bureaucratic over-reach into unconstitutionality.
Good luck with that and the current denizens of the senate and assembly, and the old serpent what's in charge.
Yes, that is the court ruling that I reffered to.
It does not mention signs because they were not part of the lawsuit.
The U.S. code requires signs 18 USC 930:
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.