TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

puma guy wrote:Saw this on another thread by DaveT and it got me to thinking. (sometimes a bad thing)
The Colorado decision was based on limited postal service. We all have limited postal service since all the corner postal boxes were removed. While you can leave mail on your mail box to be picked up if you have mass mailings such as holiday cards or invitations such as for a wedding you have to take them to the post office. My mail carrier is not going to pick up the 250 wedding invitations about to be mailed for our daughter. I hope this goes through.

DaveT http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... pdate.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The decision lists a number of factors besides reduced services. One in particular was the lack of public parking around the post office and the fact that much of the public parking available was closed during much of the winter. I think you might be hard pressed to find many POs that meet all of the criteria stated in the decision.

Yeah, I got all that. The fact remains we are all inconvenienced by the lack of offsite postal deposit alternatives. I hope the change goes through and none of us have to leave our CCW at home just to mail some letters or parcels or God forbid forget to leave it and somehow be outed while we drop letters in the parking lot box.

Saw this on another thread by DaveT and it got me to thinking. (sometimes a bad thing)
The Colorado decision was based on limited postal service. We all have limited postal service since all the corner postal boxes were removed. While you can leave mail on your mail box to be picked up if you have mass mailings such as holiday cards or invitations such as for a wedding you have to take them to the post office. My mail carrier is not going to pick up the 250 wedding invitations about to be mailed for our daughter. I hope this goes through.

DaveT http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... pdate.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jmra wrote: I am not trying to be argumentative but, per the language in the ruling accommodating Mr. Bonidy by issuing a permit is not allowed by Regulation, thus the ruling to allow Mr. Bonidy to store his firearm in his vehicle. Am I reading that wrong?

Because of the ruling the defendant would ultimately have to modify the regulations to allow for the permits. This may have been done already but not yet published. I'm sure they will do their best to bury the change as deeply in the regs as possible. [/quote]

I read some additional information regarding this decision and it is quite narrow in the application as you stated. I did read that the judge sort of leaves the door open for another stab at it for relief. Since the Avon PO is unique in that it doesn't deliver mail and requires patrons to pick it up or use the provided PO boxes I wonder if the same relief applies to post offices similar to the Avon and their patrons.

jmra wrote:

puma guy wrote:

jmra wrote:

puma guy wrote:I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

As stated IANAL. I read it as applying to the Regulation banning firearms in PO parking lots. Since the lawsuit was filed for Avon the court applies the ruling to it, but the Regulation itself also. If not the Regulation would still apply to every other post office in the US and every individual citizen, except Avon and Mr. Bonidy respectively. Maybe it does. Seems illogical, but then again logic and law are oxymoronic when the terms are used together. Need a lawyer to interpret I guess.

The decision seems very clear - the court said that the defendant had to provide the plaintiff with a means of parking in the parking lot with his firearm in his car. The court suggested a permit. If the court intended to strike down the law then the decision would have been worded much differently. This case addressed specific issues unique to the location of the post office and unique to the plaintiff.

I am not trying to be argumentative but, per the language in the ruling accommodating Mr. Bonidy by issuing a permit is not allowed by Regulation, thus the ruling to allow Mr. Bonidy to store his firearm in his vehicle. Am I reading that wrong?

jmra wrote:

puma guy wrote:I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

As stated IANAL. I read it as applying to the Regulation banning firearms in PO parking lots. Since the lawsuit was filed for Avon the court applies the ruling to it, but the Regulation itself also. If not the Regulation would still apply to every other post office in the US and every individual citizen, except Avon and Mr. Bonidy respectively. Maybe it does. Seems illogical, but then again logic and law are oxymoronic when the terms are used together. Need a lawyer to interpret I guess.

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10