TexasCHLforum.com

cyphur - thanks for the PM - I have responded in kind.

KBCraig wrote:Please report to "Reading Comprehension 101".

KB - What - precisely - is this supposed to mean?

Thank you Charles - I believe you have validated every point I made...

I never said there were not other opinions...

I said there was overwhelming evidence to favor my position.

I also said - and repeat - we all must make the choice on our own. I believe it is best to choose from a position of knowledge and not from a position of speculation.

Make it a Great Day!

Kalrog - I have no beef here- I just wish people would refrain from posting half-truths and erroneous information as fact. If that is abrasive, then I apologize. As an instructor in several disciplines, I have a responsiblilty to stick to facts.

What are you thinking? Do you think this is a NEW ISSUE??? Where have you been?

There IS, in fact NO EVIDENCE of prosecution on this matter, because the DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION is WITHIN THE CODE, hence my point. It is Very Difficult to prosecute someone for an act that is Not Illegal. There is PLENTY of law AND PLENTY of legal opinions and reviews that lead to the same conclusion I have provided here.

The circumstances surrounding this issue have been documented and played out ad nauseum for those who wish to do their homework. Again, this is NOT a new issue.

I have done my homework.

I have no need to practice interpretation - that is a dangerous exercise especially when the law is clear for those who read it and spend the time necessary to understand it.

NOW - please tell me where Post Count is pertinant to the validity of a discussion? If you are trying to imply that my position is any less valid because of my time on this forum, You sir, need to leave your bias and your prejudice at the door. I have never heard a more rediculous statement.

I have NO intention of starting flame wars so please refrain from the accusatory tone and false accusation - I STATED EARLY ON that YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE YOUR OUR INTERPRETATION.

The OP asked a question. I responded to the question in fact. I provided proof for the stated position.

If that came off as offensive or if that seems ABRASIVE - PLEASE tell me where.

May I suggest you refrain from slamming a poster just because he is New to this particular Forum or because you disagree with the facts he posts... It makes one look very closed-minded in their thinking.

You are free to disagree with my post, but you are NOT free to impugn my character nor my information just because you do not agree with it.

I look forward to Constructive Conversation in the future.

couzin - please stay on topic. OTHER Regulations have NO BEARING on this particular item.

I know the law AND I understand it.

PLEASE read what is posted and not what you want it to say.

The FACT remains the REGULATION ITSELF SPECIFICALLY STATES it does NOT annul the USC...It can NOT be more plain...

Think what you wish.

Since there is strict wording (in Texas anyway) regarding the topic, I would say:

1) if a valid 30.06 is posted - STAY OUT

2) if anything other than 30.06 is posted that specifically states Lawful Carry Not Permitted - or something like it - (being a Federal Installation) I would say this too would warrant a valid notice to STAY OUT (although this could be argued quite eloquently as invalid in court).

3) If something is posted prohibiting UNLAWFUL Carry, I say no poblem - CCW if you choose.

No couzin - I AM correct...

You are free to interpret as you choose.
I choose to investigate and interpret the statute and conditions correctly.

CCW into a Post Office - unless posted 30.06 OR unless there is a State Ordinance applicable specifically to CCW - is Legal.

That is not to say there are lots of opinions and rumor running around.

The fact remains, bad information and mis-information are not binding in any way. You are free to choose as you wish.

There is NO provision in the USC that prohibits legal carry in a federal facility (exception: courthouse). It is CLEARLY STATED within the code

Subsection (a) shall not apply to - the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes

There is confusing wording within the CFR that may have one concerned, but if you read the COMPLETE section it CLEARLY STATES

Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

IN OTHER WORDS, the conditions contained within the CFR can NOT abrogate (annul) the conditions in the USC. Period.

I am not suggesting all defining Codes have this clause but this one Certainly Does.

NO - IMO - they are NOT off limits...

The CFR cannot trump the U.S.C., and the U.S.C. allows lawful concealed carry in a federal facility.