TexasCHLforum.com

dnuggett wrote:So where does this lawsuit stand? A quick Google search didn't yield anything.

I am going to email Jim Manley at Montain States Legal amd ask him about it.

Gun control act of 1968 brings us this:

Chapter 44. Firearms

(Title18, U.S. Code, Sections 921-929)

PURPOSE

SEC. 101.The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

So....with the purpose in mind, does this alter 930?

Also, Bonidy's attorney claims that 39 CFR 232.1(l) "makes it impossible for citizens to use [firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2819.

I wonder if the case will broach the subject of the USPS being essentially a contractor for the government. I think it would have to, to validate their claims.

I think UPS oughtta take over their business, anyway. That, or the PO get another business model.

I don't know if there's a separate sticky, but here's what I have found out so far--

The case number is: 10-cv-02408. You can find the court here:http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/

It is being handled by Richard P. Matsch, who is a senior judge in the Colorado District Court. He is the judge who presided over the Timothy McVeigh case.

From what I read, he's a fair judge, and knows his law.

His calendar for the week is full, so this case is not on it neither for this week, nor next week.

there is a motion to dismiss filed by the DOJ. Here is the motion:http://www.scribd.com/doc/45607414/Boni ... to-Dismiss

Just waiting on Judge Matsch's decision on the motion.

I was just wondering if any moderator was interested in making this case a separate sticky with updates on it? The case is "Bonidy v USPS". That way, we could read the motions the arguments and the judge's ruling .

I think next will be the judge's ruling on whether or not to throw it out.

here's a copy of the document involved in the motion to dismiss from last week: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45607414/Boni ... to-Dismiss

lrb111 wrote:Maybe I missed it, has a date been set to hear this case?

On Friday (12/18), the Feds submitted a motion to dismiss the case. I can't copy and paste at work, so I will C&P the link tonight with all the legalese in tact.

Pawpaw wrote:Charles,

I'm not being argumentative either. I recognize, respect and acknowledge your years of service and experience. Still, the thought games are interesting.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It is a two-step inquiry.

• Question 1: Is the activity you want to do in the post office legal? ("other lawful activity")
  
  Yes! I want to lawfully exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms
  
  Question 2: Is a firearm required for this activity? ("incident to").
  
  Yes! It's rather difficult to "bear arms" unless you have a firearm.

If the answer to either question is "no," then the exception in 18 U.S.C. 930(4)(3) is not available.

Chas.

Again, just a mental exercise.

It's the Federal government. The Constitution does not apply in this case.

Okay. I can see that. I won't play any more "what ifs'. Maybe there will be a quick end to this law suit and we can see what the "experts" say on the matter.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
If a state makes unlawfully carrying a handgun (whether or not in a post office) a felony, then the federal statute cannot be used as a quasi defense to reduce the violation to a misdemeanor.

I have no opinion as to whether postal property is "federal" property, except that it is my understanding that the Postal Service is a hybrid entity.

Chas.

Wouldn't the reverse also be true, then? If a state makes lawful carry of a handgun, then the federal statute can't be used as a felony?

I'm just a goofy paramedic, but doesn't "abrogate" mean "to nullify"?

And 39, sec. 410 states (again) that no Federal law dealing with property "shall apply to the exercise to the powers of the Post Office".

IANAL, or a bureaucrat (thank baby Jesus), but that seems pretty cut and dried.

Here's something interesting I found by a little digging. Sorry, but it's a little long.

39 USC 410 - Sec. 410. Application of other laws

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.
And then, a little further down:
(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:
(1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records
about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102
(employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise
handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment
of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination;
right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and
conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or
employment taxes), and section 5532 (!1) (dual pay) of title 5,
except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section
shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made
applicable;

(2) all provisions of title 18 dealing with the Postal Service, the mails, and officers or employees of the Government of the United States; (emphasis mine)

If this first one says that the property of the post office isn't Federal (per se), And the provisions of Title 18 are specific (Title 18, Chapter. 63, mail fraud, and then the chapters on Fed. employees), then IMO, the PO would not be a federal agency under 930.

Also, I found this, which is kind of like the 46.035 and the 30.06 laws here in TX.

TITLE 39 - POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER I - UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

SUBCHAPTER D - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

PART 232 - CONDUCT ON POSTAL PROPERTY

232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to (i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use; (ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalk

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. 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.

39 CFR 232.1(p), 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." So would 39 CFR 232.1 be in conflict if it is read to prohibit a CHL from carrying at the post office, since a statute can't contradict a regulation?