Thanks for saving me the effort.sjfcontrol wrote:39 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part §232 & §232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c56a/2c56a767423ea9c1bf7e136bfdf318ac01c684c6" alt="thumbs2 :thumbs2:"
Return to “Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban”
Thanks for saving me the effort.sjfcontrol wrote:39 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part §232 & §232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property
TAM, I am not able to search as effectively on my phone. It will take a day or two to find this regulation and its penalty again, but I'll come back and post the actual text.The Annoyed Man wrote:For a parking lot infraction, or an inside the building infraction? Are there no other liabilities attached?Jumping Frog wrote: Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?
Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?A-R wrote:It's not the ban on carrying a gun INTO the USPS that lights my fire, it's the ban on possessing a gun in a USPS parking lot that![]()
![]()
![]()
Having to choose between going unarmed for the entire trip OR parking across the street and carrying an armful of packages is an unnecessary choice to put on those exercising their 2A rights.
This bill will never even come up for a vote. It is DOA. That is why I view it as all show and no substance.chasfm11 wrote:Perhaps you are correct. But I've often faulted the GOP for not taking the battles to the Dems and for letting the Dems control the agenda. As much as there are anti-gun legislators, there are some others in Red States who could cost themselves an election by voting against this bill or a similar one covering the Corps of Engineers property.Jumping Frog wrote:Never pass the Senate. Introducing the bill is all show, no substance.