Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#16

Post by chasfm11 »

Jumping Frog wrote: 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.

Now, I agree with the point about the GOP needs to have more of a backbone on matters of principle. However, elections have consequences and this bill getting stuffed in a back room closet never to see the light of day is one of those consequences.
I agree with you. Senator Reid understands the ramifications of a vote on this bill as well as the rest of us and will never allow it. But this is exactly the kind of thing that I'm tired of the one sided approach on. "Just give us an up or down vote" is the cry when Liberal bills get similarly stalled. They are all over the admittedly sympathetic airwaves.

The steady flow of the American public to concealed carry and the opposite erosion of polled confidence in the Congress that Senator Paul seems not to be as much affected by suggests to me that, at some point, he may spearhead enough pressure pressure to get a vote. For me, it seems better than sitting with his tail between his legs and waiting for the next election to see if things get better. And it is a lot better than he and his colleagues getting into one of the other subjects which would surely help them to lose rather than gain in the next election.

I honestly don't think that the NSA lawsuit is going to accomplish anything either but I'm glad that he is doing that, too.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#17

Post by VMI77 »

cb1000rider wrote:
WildBill wrote: :iagree: Pass or not, standing on principle and righteousness is it's own reward.
I agree completely, but with the Federal government when we have two sides that stand equally firm on opposite principles we get government shutdowns.
You seem to suggest that's a bad thing. 90% of it should be shut down.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#18

Post by VMI77 »

cb1000rider wrote:
chasfm11 wrote: Amnesty is a gift that will keep on giving. It did happen in the past. It was supposed to be part of a package that included border security - that didn't ever happen. It was like the tax increases under Regan that were supposed to come with spending cuts - that didn't ever happen. Compromise isn't spelled C..A..P...I..T..U..L...A..T...I...O...N.
"Border Security"
Personally, I don't want a larger tax bill that is associated with even more marginal results. Especially since once you're 100 miles or so off the border, you're in the clear.. As long as there are jobs here there will be people who work around our border security. Start arresting the political interests (business owners/leaders) that hire illegals and I'll believe that someone is serious about it... Until we enforce the laws that are on the books, it's all just political pandering to please a demographic. Someone tell me why we should spend billions more to lock down the border when we openly hire illegals in every city in Texas? That makes zero sense.

Republicans need to watch out. As the legitimate Hispanic population grows in Texas, so will their political influence. It might be a good idea to play the long game here, because that demographic is coming, like it or not. The Democrats are taking advantage already.
The long game is sending law breakers back home and securing the border --which is one of the few legitimate functions of government. There is no benefit to real Republicans from illegal immigration. It is in fact a losing proposition as the majority of Hispanics support the Democrats. Our current welfare system makes immigration a national suicide pact.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

GlockDude26
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:00 am

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#19

Post by GlockDude26 »

VMI77 wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:
WildBill wrote: :iagree: Pass or not, standing on principle and righteousness is it's own reward.
I agree completely, but with the Federal government when we have two sides that stand equally firm on opposite principles we get government shutdowns.
You seem to suggest that's a bad thing. 90% of it should be shut down.
exactly shut down 90% for good and let the states do what they were intended to do....
"Our houses are protected by the Good Lord and a gun, you might em both if you show up here not welcome son" Josh Thompson- Way out here (best song ever) "eventually all citizens will become criminals with enough legislation....."
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#20

Post by The Annoyed Man »

cb1000rider wrote:I'm simply stating that picking a side and refusing to compromise at all does nothing more than create a stalemate that allow the titanic to strike the iceberg. Personally, I'm tired of the political game of chicken.
CB, I get that, but here's the problem. The other side almost never compromises its principles to the same extent that conservatives end up doing. Only conservatives or libertarians are expected to compromise. This is not just true in the present, it has been that way for decades.....pretty much since the FDR administration. If both sides are 12" apart with the left at the 0" end and the right at the 12" end, and they meet at the 6" mark, THAT is compromise. But when the left consistently meets the right at the 9" mark, those are bad compromises for the right. So in the end when conservatives/libertarians have had enough and refuse to bargain away any more of their principles, they are called obstructionist for standing up for them. Nobody in the mainstream media called Obama an obstructionist for flatly stating that he will not negotiate with republicans in congress. It's the same kind of logic as labeling a reduction in the rate of increase for spending on a line item as a "deep cut." NOTHING got cut, it just didn't go up as much. It almost NEVER actually gets CUT......unless it is military spending..... and this is just one of the lies the left perpetrates on us.

Obama keeps telling republicans that the ACA is settled law, and they should give up trying to repeal it. Let me do a word substitution: "Jim Crow is settled law, and republicans should stop trying to repeal it." THANKFULLY, republicans DID succeed in getting much of Jim Crow repealed. .....because it was BAD law, and unconstitutional at that. The argument that ACA is settled law is lame down to its bones. For one thing, it is not settled! There are still cases coming before SCOTUS having to do with both the letter of the law AND its implementation. Until those cases are decided and the dust clears, ACA is not "settled" law. For another thing, Jim Crow WAS settled law, upheld by SCOTUS for years before its tentacles were all chopped off, so using the "settled law" argument to warn people away from contesting BAD law is just plain stupid, not to mention disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt. I'd pay good money for the chance to tell that to Obama to his face.

Years and years of bad compromises are what have gotten us to the point where compromise is no longer possible for conservatives. Personally, I would like to see dueling with pistols reintroduced to Congressional debate. When a poltroon has to exercise a little restraint when dealing with his opposites, for fear that they will make him pay with his life for being a devious piece of dung, then maybe congress can get back to the point of sane compromises. But until then, if refusal to compromise means that Congress gets nothing done, then perhaps we are better off. At least they can do no damage when they're not in session.

Last night's SOTU speech was by far the most imperious I've ever witnessed, regardless of party affiliation. It made me afraid for the republic. Can you imagine any previous sitting president issuing a threat like that to Congress, in their chambers, on their turf? I've never seen the like before. It came from the mouth of a president who fundamentally believes that the separation of powers is non-binding upon his administration. How far are we from tipping over into a dictatorship? Heck, even the USSR had a parliament. So does North Korea. Is anybody dumb enough to think that the people of the former USSR or North Korea got or now get good governance from that arrangement?

There's a Jamaican saying I like that goes something like, "the higher a monkey climb the tree, the more he expose himself". If Congress does little or nothing, Obama becomes more and more exposed for the person he really is—a man who would have no internal debate in his heart over whether or not dictatorship would be appropriate if he thought he could get away with it.

Yes, I want a functioning government, but Congress isn't the ONLY problem here. A dictatorial president who thinks he can make and enforce law without Congress is a HUGE part of the problem.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#21

Post by Cedar Park Dad »

If you want to make it pass couple it with a repeal of the accelerated benefits collateralizing that the Post Office has to do versus everyone else.

it will pass.

cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#22

Post by cb1000rider »

The Annoyed Man wrote: CB, I get that, but here's the problem. The other side almost never compromises its principles to the same extent that conservatives end up doing. Only conservatives or libertarians are expected to compromise. This is not just true in the present, it has been that way for decades.....pretty much since the FDR administration. If both sides are 12" apart with the left at the 0" end and the right at the 12" end, and they meet at the 6" mark, THAT is compromise. But when the left consistently meets the right at the 9" mark, those are bad compromises for the right. So in the end when conservatives/libertarians have had enough and refuse to bargain away any more of their principles, they are called obstructionist for standing up for them. Nobody in the mainstream media called Obama an obstructionist for flatly stating that he will not negotiate with republicans in congress. It's the same kind of logic as labeling a reduction in the rate of increase for spending on a line item as a "deep cut." NOTHING got cut, it just didn't go up as much. It almost NEVER actually gets CUT......unless it is military spending..... and this is just one of the lies the left perpetrates on us.

I suggest compromise not speaking just to the conservatives of this forum, but I suggest it as the only viable option on both sides of the isle. And I am sorry, but I don't buy one side (either one) telling me that compromise isn't happening because the other side won't play ball. If you can factually show that to me - that Conservatives are the ones that are offering up compromise measures and never the other way around, then the solution becomes a lot more clear to me. And if that's the case, I really need to get educated on it. And of course, we really never know what bargains are being discussed behind closed doors.

I completely agree with you on spending. The government gets an F. I was actually happy with some parts of sequestration, as it illustrated that the sky didn't fall.

And look, sometimes the 6" mark that you mention results in something that is worse than either the 0" or 12". Those deals shouldn't be done.
But sometimes we end up at 5", 6", or 7" and both sides are not happy. The far left and far right start throwing their own party under the bus, but those compromises, which often bend fundamentals such as immigration reform, gun control, etc might just be better than doing nothing at all. Any time I hear that the tea party is throwing a fit and liberal Democrats are throwing a fit about a compromise, I usually listen - because it's probably something centric and perhaps a true compromise. I didn't say it's automatically a great solution, but at least it's progress rather than stalemate and often better than the status quo.

I can talk about the ACA all day. It's off topic here, so my only comment is that I saw an interesting commentary from an Australian the other day.. What he said was:
"With all these stories that I read about people dying because they can't afford the healthcare that they need, why are so many Americans against reforming healthcare?"

Of course, it's not that simple, but it's an interesting observation. Ignoring the ADA - we were headed to a Very Bad Place. I'm not sure if the ADA gets us there faster or helps us avoid it, to be honest.

I hear you that you've already compromised all that you can and you've got nothing more worth bargaining with that isn't a fundamental. I get it. And certainly I see that on both sides of the isle, especially the farther you get away from center. I'd just point out that if everyone took that stance, we're done.. We've got nothing more to discuss, because no one gets or gives anything going forward.

The President was pretty assertive last night. He strikes me as being fed up. He's obviously ready to ram his agenda down congress - or ram his agenda through where his powers allow. Take heart in knowing that whatever "reforms" he rams through on executive power will quickly be undone as soon as we have a new president, so I think any extreme changes will be pretty limited in how long they live. It definitely wasn't a tone of compromise. I also take it as someone who is fed up with inaction in Congress - left in his position: Get more nothing done or start using executive powers, what do you do? I'm not worried about a dictatorship. He doesn't have a line item veto and I'd point to other administrations in terms of overstepping constitutionally defined bounds much more than this one. Show me that he's exercising power that the executive doesn't have and you'll get me worried.

Obama isn't very popular, certainly even less popular in this state and on this forum... However, he's still a rock star compared to Congress on approval ratings. (Don't take that as support of his agenda, please)
User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 11203
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#23

Post by Oldgringo »

If I could pick and choose, in a bipartisan manner, of course, I'd much rather be able to carry my gun/s on a RV trip into and through New England and in the nation's capital. Sorry, but being able to CC in a post office just doesn't 'light my fire' to paraphrase José Feliciano.
User avatar

Topic author
A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#24

Post by A-R »

Oldgringo wrote:If I could pick and choose, in a bipartisan manner, of course, I'd much rather be able to carry my gun/s on a RV trip into and through New England and in the nation's capital. Sorry, but being able to CC in a post office just doesn't 'light my fire' to paraphrase José Feliciano.
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 :mad5 :mad5 :mad5

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.
User avatar

Jumping Frog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5488
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#25

Post by Jumping Frog »

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 :mad5 :mad5 :mad5

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.
Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
User avatar

Topic author
A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#26

Post by A-R »

Jumping Frog wrote:
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 :mad5 :mad5 :mad5

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.
Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?
Explain?
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 9044
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#27

Post by mojo84 »

Jumping Frog wrote:
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 :mad5 :mad5 :mad5

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.
Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?

I'm interested in learning more about this as well.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#28

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Jumping Frog wrote:
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 :mad5 :mad5 :mad5

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.
Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?
For a parking lot infraction, or an inside the building infraction? Are there no other liabilities attached?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#29

Post by jmra »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote:
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 :mad5 :mad5 :mad5

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.
Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?
For a parking lot infraction, or an inside the building infraction? Are there no other liabilities attached?
Also interested in the answer to this question. Don't mind at all carrying an extra $50 with me.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
User avatar

Jumping Frog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5488
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: Rand Paul bill to remove post office gun ban

#30

Post by Jumping Frog »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote: Do you realize if you get caught, you are facing a $50 fine?
For a parking lot infraction, or an inside the building infraction? Are there no other liabilities attached?
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.

As I recall, it is a $50 fine plus "up to 30 days", which is the most minor offense in the USPS system. The reg does not distinguish between buildings and grounds.

There are some states, like Ohio, where the state offense is more severe that the USPS one. In Ohio, being armed anywhere that is forbidden under federal law is a severe Ohio felony. We don't have that issue in Texas. :txflag:
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”