Sweeper13 Posted March 21, 2016 at 04:40 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 04:40 PM http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-rejects-appeal-ban-guns-post-offices-37810287 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted March 21, 2016 at 04:48 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 04:48 PM It's amazing to me how shall not be infringed doesn't apparently mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted March 21, 2016 at 07:10 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 07:10 PM Very unfortunate end to the Bonidy case. That has some pretty big impacts (all of them very negative.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrowningHP Posted March 21, 2016 at 11:20 PM Share Posted March 21, 2016 at 11:20 PM It's amazing to me how shall not be infringed doesn't apparently mean anything. It's more amazing to me the logic behind the law. What would this law have done to stop the "mass shooting" that it was supposedly passed for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:50 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 12:50 AM It's more amazing to me the logic behind the law. What would this law have done to stop the "mass shooting" that it was supposedly passed for?Oh, no logic to be found. It's about control. The post office is federal property, not public. Your rights end where they say they do. Feels wonderful, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted March 22, 2016 at 05:01 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 05:01 AM I suspect the gun friendly people on the court were concerned how the case would proceed if they opted to take it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted March 22, 2016 at 05:35 AM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 05:35 AM Whatever you do, don't read the comments on the link OP provided. There's some special kinds of stupid in that crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 22, 2016 at 02:41 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 02:41 PM I find it ironic how the USPS is a private company, yet it isn't, couldn't survive without government subsudization. Just like if Delta (or American, United) stopped receiving subsidies, they wouldn't be able to survive. Same with Amtrak. And the whole "this is federal property" implies no rights exist when on federal property, other than the ones that they allow one to exercise. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlecoilpickup Posted March 22, 2016 at 02:55 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 02:55 PM Seriously, we need to stop subsidizing failing companies. They are failing for a reason and they should be allowed to be put out of their misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerus Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:20 PM Share Posted March 22, 2016 at 03:20 PM Seriously, we need to stop subsidizing failing companies. They are failing for a reason and they should be allowed to be put out of their misery. +1 The USPS has no one to blame but themselves. Instead of whining about emails being free to send they should have kept up with changing times. Their tracking service still sucks, their prices are outrageous - more expensive than UPS/FedEx on all but the really small stuff and they constantly "lose" you're stuff. When internet shopping took off, UPS and FedEx stepped up their game big time and left the USPS in the dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LannyH Posted March 26, 2016 at 03:15 PM Share Posted March 26, 2016 at 03:15 PM Its still amazing how 9 people that are not even Elected and no way to get them out have so much power over our rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted March 26, 2016 at 07:41 PM Share Posted March 26, 2016 at 07:41 PM Here we go again. The USPS is not subsidized by the government and receives no tax dollars. "The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations." It does however receive Tax breaks and can borrow from the treasury, but then this doesn't relate to the OP. Relating to the OP however it is a sad end to the Bonidy Case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted March 26, 2016 at 08:46 PM Share Posted March 26, 2016 at 08:46 PM Here we go again. The USPS is not subsidized by the government and receives no tax dollars. "The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations." It does however receive Tax breaks and can borrow from the treasury, but then this doesn't relate to the OP. Relating to the OP however it is a sad end to the Bonidy Case.How is it then a federal government facility? Why can't we get a pro-gun federal rep to introduce a bill that simply designates legal concealed carry as a lawful purpose under the federal statute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted March 26, 2016 at 10:24 PM Share Posted March 26, 2016 at 10:24 PM Here we go again. The USPS is not subsidized by the government and receives no tax dollars."The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations."It does however receive Tax breaks and can borrow from the treasury, but then this doesn't relate to the OP.Relating to the OP however it is a sad end to the Bonidy Case. How is it then a federal government facility? Why can't we get a pro-gun federal rep to introduce a bill that simply designates legal concealed carry as a lawful purpose under the federal statute?http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service By the way it is not a Federal Statute that authorizes the USPS it is the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 7. "The United States Postal Service, also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service, often abbreviated as USPS, is an independent agency of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted March 27, 2016 at 05:55 AM Share Posted March 27, 2016 at 05:55 AM Authorized to exist by the constitution, but then they can then ignore the same document that's supposed to guarantee your rights. My signature applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted March 28, 2016 at 04:08 AM Share Posted March 28, 2016 at 04:08 AM Here we go again. The USPS is not subsidized by the government and receives no tax dollars."The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations."It does however receive Tax breaks and can borrow from the treasury, but then this doesn't relate to the OP.Relating to the OP however it is a sad end to the Bonidy Case.How is it then a federal government facility? Why can't we get a pro-gun federal rep to introduce a bill that simply designates legal concealed carry as a lawful purpose under the federal statute?http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service By the way it is not a Federal Statute that authorizes the USPS it is the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8, Clause 7. "The United States Postal Service, also known as the Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service, often abbreviated as USPS, is an independent agency of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution."Could Trump or Cruz issue an executive order declaring the law carry whether open or concealed as a lawful purpose in accordance with federal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.