Posted on 03/15/2016 6:53:41 AM PDT by marktwain
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It should be repealed.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.