tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post898104643490268980..comments2024-01-05T12:03:52.460-05:00Comments on No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Bonidy v. USPS: Postal Service Moves To DismissJohn Richardsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03151468462458613615noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-88042045666785349052012-03-23T03:21:22.228-04:002012-03-23T03:21:22.228-04:00It’s ideal to calculate the pricing of your packag...It’s ideal to calculate the pricing of your package or letters by the mail class that <b><a href="http://www.usglobalmail.com/terms" rel="nofollow">USPS Postage Rates</a></b> have to offer.Ashley Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06934827678926096836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-13854654765131799442010-12-22T21:55:52.031-05:002010-12-22T21:55:52.031-05:00Just a thought, since it's legal to ship a gun...Just a thought, since it's legal to ship a gun via the USPS, why is it illegal to have something they allow shipped? And before any of you say I'm wrong, I have the form required for it and have seen it done.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543877793700867024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-67490144049332714572010-12-22T00:09:49.938-05:002010-12-22T00:09:49.938-05:00I am confused. I thought it was settled law that r...I am confused. I thought it was settled law that regulations did not trump laws. So shouldn't Title 18 § 930 (Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities which specifically excludes "the lawful carrying of firearms ... in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes") override CFR 232.1? Especially since CFR 232.1 (q)(1) states: "Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon"?Bruce Kraffthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06335335927366243101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-56308900841413383892010-12-20T21:59:40.550-05:002010-12-20T21:59:40.550-05:00Private "Mailboxes Etc." perform every f...Private "Mailboxes Etc." perform every function of the current USPS (and those of Fed Ex and UPS for that matter typically) yet are not considered sensitive places under state or Federal law. On that basis alone how is the USPS office sensitive when those locations are not?<br /><br />Anywhere the general public can go in the normal course of business, that is anywhere not "employees only" or secured by a physical barrier cannot under any rational basis be considered "sensitive". In other words, anywhere equivalent to "private property".<br /><br />Note this would not impact military bases, the emp. only (locked) areas of LE or other gov offices, the secure areas of airports or courts et al, just the parking lots and public lobbies.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05414687981098467556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-13077455763069107392010-12-19T17:03:33.286-05:002010-12-19T17:03:33.286-05:00And of course, there is this...
"DeShaney v....And of course, there is this...<br /><br />"DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1005–1006 (1989): <br /><br />” The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf. See Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S., at 103, 97 S.Ct., at 290. ... In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf — through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty–which is the “deprivation of liberty” triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.”RKVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287245520458090702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-36987604079096154672010-12-19T16:59:43.922-05:002010-12-19T16:59:43.922-05:00Unless and until the owner of so-called "sens...Unless and until the owner of so-called "sensitive places" (i.e. the gov) can be sued successfully for breach of duty of care in the event that a citizen is harmed and unable to defend themselves because of the prohibition on "bearing" arms in said place, then such a place is, definitionaly, not a sensitive place. No free lunches.RKVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287245520458090702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-10822750332203855002010-12-18T21:25:03.242-05:002010-12-18T21:25:03.242-05:00Didn't the criminals that commited the murders...Didn't the criminals that commited the murders in the Tennessee Post Office know that carrying firearms was illegal on postal property? Maybe the people they killed may have had a chance had they not been banned from carrying firearms to defend themselves.sandman27https://www.blogger.com/profile/17444859885743585893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-80422602858945321882010-12-18T19:30:20.380-05:002010-12-18T19:30:20.380-05:00If any of these cases lose up to SCOTUS, if I were...If any of these cases lose up to SCOTUS, if I were them, I'd write "Granted, vacated, remanded. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08737518658820763088noreply@blogger.com