Haman J.T.
New member
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19423472 .This looks good!
Good news, so far so good. I would think since the SCOTUS ruling on Heller, that a post office is under federal control and by banning firearms the government is infringing on the 2A. I don't see what's so sensitive about a post office, not much different than Amtrack.
But since the future of a publicly controlled postal service is in question, this may be a moot point.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :
Impossible!lil_freak_66 said:everybody has heard the saying "going postal" where did that originally come from?
wasnt it a post office shooting by a crazed employee?
I don't know how many of you know the whole story but given the actions of the guys supervisor, his actions didn't really come unexpected. While I don't condone what the guy did; I can understand his frame of mind and why he did it. Being an ex postal employee, his situation didn't surprise me a bit.
At the time there were actually more work place shootings elsewhere. It's just a lot more news drams to put the spotlight on the post office. They milked that story for two weeks and still didn't have all the facts right. No surprise here.
Forgive me, any time I see someone talk about this part of the Heller decision, I am compelled to fill in the extremely important blanks, which more fully explain exactly what is being said.No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.