TexasCHLforum.com

If you are not engaging in self-defense 24-7, you are crazy. I guess I am not engaging in self-defense when I am in White, when I have a defensive perimeter.

You carry a gun because you might find something to shoot when you hunt. I carry a gun because I might need to shoot someone/something for self-defense. You have to carry a gun 100% of the time while hunting because you might need it. You have to carry a gun 100% because you might need it for self-defense.

The fact that said need in a PO is statistically minor is irrelevant. Actually, it is pretty insignificant everywhere I go. If it was not, I would not go there.

Is it legal to carry in a PO? Yes! Could I prove that in a court of law? Probably not. Could I afford to litigate it? Definitely not. There are a lot of acts that were deemed illegal until the USSC said the law was unconstitutional. Many of those laws were not as ambiguous as the phrase 'incident to other legal activity'.

I think we can all agree that self-defense is a legal activity. In fact, it is legal to use a gun for self-defense in many areas where it is illegal to have a gun - and usually, you are not prosecuted for having it there. I think most of us here would agree that having a gun is preferable for self-defense.

I recognize that most federal LEO and fed prosecutors would not agree w/me.

I disagree. If you only carried at the PO, then you'd need some reason to justify carrying for self-defense only then.

If you carry all the time and a gun is obviously incident to self-defense, then there needs to be some reason that a PO is substantially safer than everywhere else you go.

mojo84 wrote: Not sure I follow your point. So, a handgun is needed to check the mail or to mail something? That is the point of going to the post office. You don't go there for the purpose of self-defense.

I carry a gun 'incident' to self-defense. I carry while shopping at Walmart, while driving, while pumping gas at Exxon/Mobil, while sitting in church, on date night at Chili's,.... If I knew no postal employee was going to go postal while I was mailing a letter, I 'could' leave it in the car. Course, that would be more dangerous - any ten year old w/a brick could steal it and every time I handle it (un-holster, re-holster) I run the risk of having a negligent discharge.

A gun is needed for self-defense. My self-defense concerns may vary by location and activity. There are a lot of places I feel safer in/at than a US Post Office. Home, for instance, I still carry at home.

It would be fine if they had lockers for you to lock up your gun AND had armed guards for your protection.

I'd say self defense is immediate and I do intend to shoot someone - to preserve my life or anothers. Granted, I may not need a hand gun (just like I may not need a rifle -- if I don't see a deer), but I am looking for a deer and will need a rifle then, I am looking for someone to attack and will need a gun then.

We tell students, if you only carry when you think you will need it, you better be good at predicting the future. :)

Who? Charles Cotton, the owner/host of this forum and all federal LEO and prosecutors. :(

That seems to be plain english. "other legal purpose" would included CC w/CHL. However, current interpretation ties it to hunting. I do not agree w/that interpretation. I think a law should be clear and any ambiguity should be decided in favor of the defendant. ( I always heard that a tie goes to the runner in baseball.) However, I do not have the resource to contest this and do not like the consequences if I lose.

I feel the same way about the discussion where carrying concealed w/a CHL also means you can carry an 'illegal' knife'.

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

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?