High Court Rejects Appeal Over Ban on Guns at Post Offices

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.

The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.

The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.

The Obama administration argued that the Second Amendment does not restrict laws forbidding guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-rejects-appeal-ban-guns-post-offices-37810287

---

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — Mar 21, 2016, 10:13 AM ET

Short article. No more at link.

[NutmegYankee]

1. A rather obvious and correct decision.

Some people... You have a clear right to own guns, go hunting, and defend your home if you need to. You don't have a right to carry a gun every god damned place you go.

[Darb]

2. The Gumpers are not going to like your post, nor

this decision.

Oh well.

Darn.

[TeddyR]

3. No, that isn't correct

Scalia said in Heller that Second Amendment rights aren't absolute, and this restriction seems fine to me.

[Darb]

4. Agreed.

But the Gun Humpers think their toys are more important than anything. Kinda like a binky, or a blankey.

[villager]

21. An "insecurity blanket," really. Good point. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. I'm fine with it, too.

Like the huge majority of gun owners, I approve of reasonable regulations.

[NutmegYankee]

6. Neither side will like my post.

The guns everywhere people annoy me, but so do the totalitarian anti-gun people who argue the Second Amendment doesn't protect individual gun ownership and yet pretend they are liberal. Bullshit! A Liberal believes in individual liberty and rights as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are limits on the power of Government, not powers of it. The Federal government doesn't need a right to regulate the militia, it's already got that power in Article I Section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

What the Second protects is the right of the people to not be disarmed. A republic puts its power in the people's hands and trusts them. Alas, we seem to have moved to oligarchy these days.

[Darb]

9. Why mention "militia" at all then?

I own guns but things have changed. Our society is vastly over-gunned and the kooks have got em en mass. I say we dial it back a bit. You seem to agree somewhat.

Peace.

[NutmegYankee]

14. It goes back to what is a Republic.

Standing armies were associated with autocratic governments like monarchies and were considered a threat to liberty. Instead, much like Switzerland, we would defend our nation with our citizenry, similar to the "minutemen" concept. One of the reasons to mention well regulated though was our first crack at it sucked - The common farmers that showed up as militia just performed badly in combat. This was a clear concern and it was hoped our society would train much like Switzerland did to defend itself while hoping for peace.
Compare that mindset to today, where we have a large standing army and intervene all around the world.

I do recognize we have serious problems today. I wish we could have a decent discussion and come to a solid agreement on paths forward, but gun ownership has become a culture war between urban and rural and shows no signs of compromise.

[villager]

22. Plus the scale and lethality of the weapons have changed, and you can't keep willfully ignoring that

...fact, much as many would like to.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Ah, the "Technology has rendered the Second Amendment obsolete" argument is made

Posted via a quill pen and hand-cranked printing press, no doubt...

[Darb]

43. Good point, a guy in my town today killed 20 people with an HP Officejet.

Clue in.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. The First Amendment has moved along with technology...why not the Second?

Oh, yeah- I forgot about the 'special pleading' you lot love to use...

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. The Supreme Court just *unanimously* issued the following rejection of your thesis:

The disinterested reader will note that there were NO dissents- look up
the definition of 'per curiam'


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016

PER CURIAM
.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends,
prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
the time of the founding,”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008),

and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,”

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a
Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after
examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon
contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by
the Second Amendment.”

470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its
holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to
stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are
not protected because they “were not in common use at the
time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.”

Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement
that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous
per se at common law and unusual,”

470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694,
in an attempt to apply one “important
limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,”

Heller 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and
unusual weapons’”).

In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual”
because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.”

470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694.

By equating “unusual” with “in common use at
the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the
court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is
inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.
Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found
“nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are
readily adaptable to use in the military.”

470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694.

But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in
warfare are protected.”

554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered
for upholding the law contradicts this
Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of
certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
are granted. The judgment of the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion. It is so ordered.

[Darb]

74. No it didn't, my point crushes, as usual.

You think the printing press is the same as guns. I crushed that out of the park. Then you cut and pasted a bunch of irrelevant shit because the next justice, and the current four that are not fascist assholes, are going to put as stop to all your bullshit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. "(T)he current four that are not fascist assholes" AGREED with the other four

Hence the "per curiam" note in the ruling. As for a new SC justice, an 8-1 loss is no less
a loss than an 8-0 loss. YMMV

I don't actually mind your empty boasting and name-calling, as I find that political efficacy more
than makes up for it...

[Darb]

81. Separating a baby from his blankey is not worth the effort,

so go ahead and hold tight. Obviously nothing is going to change the mind of a two year old, even mass murder and killings on a mind-numbing scale. Hold on. I know you are going to need your blankey some day, to protect you from the zombie horde.

You are the problem. You facilitate the problem. Poverty, hopelessness, mental illness, all that, you help it turn into death.

Own it.

Now proceed in cut and pasting more pablum to protect your blankey.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. I hope you find all that moralizing and self-righteousness a soothing balm for your soul

False consensus effect really messes with peoples heads...

[TeddyR]

29. If the Second Amendment

Should be repealed for policy reasons that is the province of the legislature, not the courts.

[villager]

32. Or the courts, depending on whether unfettered distribution of war weapons...

...was in fact the intent.

[TeddyR]

37. But you are arguing policy

And whether a constitutional amendment still has a place in modern day society. As much as I support the court rulings on certain issues they should not make policy decisions. A ruling that the 2d Amendment only protects the ownership of firearms in connection with militia service is within the purview of the courts. A ruling that the 2d is outdated because of advances in firearm technology is - or should be - something courts are not qualified to make. I doubt any judge would presume to make such a ruling.

[villager]

38. Rightwing judges presume a lot -- as did the Supreme Court when Scalia was the 5th NRA vote.

Time now to "presume" in a more rational direction.

[TeddyR]

39. Yeah

That doesn't really address my point at all. Do you believe that courts should make broad policy decisions like invalidating a portion of the Constitution because it is "outdated"?

[villager]

47. Do you really believe it's not going to wind up in court anyway after your NRA compadres

...drag any "legislative remedy" there?

[TeddyR]

52. The NRA aren't

My "compadres." If they want to sue over this issue that's up to them, but they'd almost certainly lose, and rightly so.

[villager]

64. Nice dodge -- but you know your gun-mates *will* take it to court

...and ultimately, any legislation will ultimately be decided there.

[beevul]

40. Yeah, lets just forget the privately owned warships and cannons...

Yeah, lets just forget the privately owned warships and cannons, during the day the bill of rights was authored in.

[former9thward]

46. Ahh I guess all 8 Justices "willfully ignored that" on Monday.

In an 8-0 2nd amendment decision the SC struck down a Massachusetts law which banned stun guns. MA said the 2nd amendment did not protect stun guns whose technology was not around when the 2nd amendment was written.

Today, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court vacated a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that had concluded that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to stun guns. The Court’s per curiam opinion scolded the Massachusetts court for its failure to apply the proper legal tests under D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and quite rightly so. The court did not reach the ultimate question of whether stun guns constitute “arms” for Second Amendment purposes, however, instead vacating and remanding the state court opinion.

The Court’s per curiam opinion is brief and biting. Here it is:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/21/supreme-court-zaps-massachusetts-stun-gun-opinion/

[villager]

48. Let's see what they do with Colorado's still-standing regulations:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141387081

One guesses it won't be "8-0" to overturn.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Were they worth losing the Colorado state Senate to the GOP?

Watching the anti-gun types trying to explain it away
in the linked threads would be most
amusing if it weren't for the fact that the Pubbies took over:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014591904

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172176644

[William Seger]

16. A progressive liberal also believes that the Constitution is not immutable

That's why there's a democratic, Constitutional process for changing it. No, the 2nd amendment was never intended to allow people to defend themselves from their own government; that's what the democratic process is for.

[NutmegYankee]

18. I never said the purpose is for defense against ones own government.

The people, trained to arms, are the defense force of that government. (or were in 1791) As far as amending the Constitution, obviously we can do that if we choose. But as of right now, it is an enumerated right and pretending it doesn't exist won't change that. That doesn't mean that it can't be chipped away and destroyed - The Republicans have shown that path well with the Right to Choose and Right to Privacy.

[hack89]

7. No - we understand very clearly that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns. nt

[Darb]

12. Ok.

Great. Now lets restrict the zoo a bit. Start with high capacity mags.

[hack89]

13. What is high capacity in your opinion? nt

[maxsolomon]

20. don't take the hack89 bait!

I've seen this before. answer a question with a question.

[hack89]

23. "High capacity" has to equate to a number.

how else will you write it into law?

[villager]

24. Exactly. That side will never commit to an unambiguous answer while *pretending* to be reasonable...

nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. How about an unambiguous answer from *you*- what's a "large capacity magazine"?

[Darb]

42. See post 41, Wild Bill.

Can you get it done in 6?

[villager]

45. Presumably that's not to me, since I'm on your side of this issue.

But hey, at least Hack did actually commit to some hard numbers -- as inflated as they are -- for a change!

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. 'Forced justification' and 'Phelpsing', eh? Noted and figured out *long* ago:

"How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists in their plan to ban guns."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#367600

Post #55:

Forced justification:

This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

Post #56:

"Phelpsing" - loudly and repeatedly proclaiming the moral and/or psychological deficiencies of gun owners.

[Darb]

61. Get that from the NRA did ya? Practice.

Six shots at a time. This debate is like trying to take a blankey from a spoiled-ass brat.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. No deal, Elmer- it's not up to you, as much as that might chap your ass

It's always "the NRA" with you lot, isn't it? Just like the Church Lady, only with a different boogeyman:

[Darb]

71. Lost your god Scalia, sit tight.

Better get out there and practice. Gonna have to hit in six. Try eye glasses. Or quit drinking, maybe you got the shakes. Hell, I have no idea why you can't shoot straight.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Do you prefer the Logitech Illuminated or an IBM Model M clone for your gun-control needs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard

Model M is a designation for a group of computer keyboards manufactured by IBM starting in 1984, and later by Lexmark, Unicomp and MaxiSwitch. The keyboard's many variations have their own distinct characteristics, with the vast majority having a buckling-spring key design and swappable keycaps. Model M keyboards have been praised by computer enthusiasts and frequent typists due to their durability and consistency, and the tactile and auditory feedback they provide.

The Model M is also regarded as a timeless and durable piece of hardware.[1][2][3][4] Although the computers and computer peripherals produced concurrently with the Model M are considered obsolete, many Model M keyboards are still in use due to their physical durability and the continued validity of their ANSI 101-key layouts. Since their original popularity, new generations of writers and computer technicians have rediscovered their unique functionality and aesthetics.[5] The Kentucky-based company Unicomp continues to manufacture and sell Model M-style keyboards.[5]

An important question for you lot, since the bulk of modern 'gun control activism'
consists of the endless production of verbiage...

[Darb]

82. Hold on to your blankey.

Coward.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. I don't own a gun, and haven't for years. Got any more erroneous assumptions for us?

[Darb]

41. Over 6.

If you cannot get it done in 6, reload.

When we hunted as kids we had to plug our shotguns so we had one in the chamber and two in the mag. It was never a big issue. It was the law and we obeyed it. Not like today's wankers and their candy ass AKs and ARs. In most hunting situations that was enough, relaoding is not a big deal.

[hack89]

44. I say 10 for handguns, 15 for rifles

But keep a 5 round limit for rifles for hunting.

[Darb]

49. What for? What do you need 15 for?

It makes mass murder far easier and there is really no need for that many rounds without reloading.

Tell me, why do you need 15?

[hack89]

50. I have a safe full of rifles and mags

i like them and they make shooting convenient. Pain in the ass having to reload all the time.

[Darb]

58. I guess it is all about you then.

Keep what you got. Ban new sales over 6 and ban the sale of pre-owned mags greater than 6, stiff penalty if you get caught. Of course you guys will continue to sell them to each other, but if you get caught it will cost you. You can keep your toys. You guys are always asking for specifics yet when I give some, it's all about you and your "convenience"? Just reload every now and then.

[hack89]

62. No. I just don't like security theater

but you don't need me to pass the laws you want, do you? So why don't you get busy and leave me alone. Thanks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. "(P)ass the laws you want"? "(G)et busy"? As if! That sort doesn't do real-world politics

All they do is complain online and act like the NRA is the equivalent of...



...or Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984.

It's a classic case of 'false consensus effect':

https://www.google.com/search?q=false+consensus+effect&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[Darb]

72. Why don't you quit one-issue trolling?

Give mun violence and mass killings facilitation a rest for a while. And get out there and practice, having banana clips makes you a worse shot, not better. Practice.

[hack89]

75. You obviously know nothing about competitive target shooting

no - "banana clips " have definitely not made me or my family worse shots.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. An unearned and undeserved sense of superiority has long been associated with gun control advocates

I see that the tradition is being kept up...

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. And what are *you* doing in the real world to bring that about? My guess: Nothing,...

...aside from putting wear on a computer keyboard

[Darb]

73. I am certainly not running my mouth about my blankey.

Just quit facilitating gun violence by attacking sensible gun restrictions. Give up your blankey. Don't tell me, Brussels made you run out and arm up some more.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Or anything substantial. BTW, you just used *another* fallacy seen prior to your DU stint:

Really, you're making this too easy. Have you thought about getting another schtick?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172153600#post100

"There is a logical fallacy there" There's two, from what I can see

They begin with the post title

64. What is so bad about a few reasonable restrictions?

An appeal to common sense. Who gets to define 'reasonable'? Michael Bloomberg?
Wayne LaPierre? The White Panthers?

Contrary to RW media and the NRA, most Americans don't want to take away your guns, but they do want some reasonable restrictions for safety.

A strawman argument combined with an 'argumentum ad populum', topped with
a reiteration of the appeal to common sense from the post title

If you are truly a "Responsible gun owner" you would support some restrictions. It's just common sense.

Yet again, the appeal to common sense

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. It's none of your business. You are attempting the "forced justification" technique:

The following thread predates your time here at DU, and most of your tactics can be found
therein:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#367600

How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists in their plan to ban guns.

Post #50:

Another one...

Implied need for justification of need of ownership.

"why do you need X"

Post #55:

Forced justification (beevul):

This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

[Darb]

59. Terrorist don't need it, kooks don't need it, and neither do you.

You must be a real bad shot. Go practice a bit with your very special toy. Then maybe you can get good enough to hit what you are aiming at.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Not up to you, and you'll most likely never do anything in real life to make your dream reality

You lot are all Internet sound and fury and no real-life action:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189304

Lexington (Massachusetts) man backs off proposed town ban on ‘assault weapons’

The disinterested reader will note the proposed bylaw got little support and
was opposed 30-2 by speakers at the earlier meeting:


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/09/gun-rights-advocates-decry-proposal-ban-semi-automatic-weapons-lexington/IluT5ejbIhwzk2ieWGxK9J/story.html

Once again, the purported 'silent majority' that supposedly wants more gun control turns
out to not actually exist...

Your sort can't even get a gun control measure passed in a liberal town in Massachusetts-
that is why the whiny petulance of modern gun control advocates no
longer carries a sting.

[Darb]

84. Go hug your gun.

Coward.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Aww, is slacktivism not giving you the same rush that it used to?

Don't worry, you'll get over it. And so will we...

[pablo_marmol]

88. "That is why the whiny petulance of modern gun control advocates no longer.......

carries a sting."

There was a time when their whiny petulance actually carried any sting?

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Back when they had political pull it carried a little. Not now, of course.

They are going the way of the other great modern prohibitionist movement
(cannabis), and as their power dwindles they just get crankier and crankier.

I must confess that I do enjoy watching them act out. Oh well, one must
find ones' amusements where one can...

[pablo_marmol]

94. Agreed. Given the fact that the tide is failing to turn they're just getting filthy. NT

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Feh. We figured out posters like you *long* before you ever joined DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189201

Nah, a "MGAFYGAE" and "Uncle Ruckus", and possibly a "F*dd"

From a still-useful thread. The whole thing is worth a read, as it discusses some very familiar
ploys

How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists in their plan to ban guns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#367600

X_Digger
Response to Original message
60. How about..

Not sure if this one counts as a separate one, but the..

MGAFYGAE -- "MY guns are fine, YOUR guns are evil."

Black powder guns, revolvers, traditionally stocked shotguns, deer rifles, even 1911's- "But I {or Dad, or Granddad, or Uncle Duke} had / have one of those, so they're perfectly fine. The rest of your guns? Ban 'em."


friendly_iconoclast
Response to Reply #60
61. That's a good one. A variant is the "Uncle Ruckus"

Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners

jeepnstein

66. They're called "Fudds".

While I personally have nothing against Elmer Fudd and his War on Rabbits, his human counterparts are obnoxious at times.

They'll wax poetic about how this or that firearm is beyond reproach or ban because it has some sporting use. They constantly want to make the 2nd Amendment about hunting. Most of them will own a pistol or two but it's usually some kind of marginally useful thing that they've buggered to death after reading too many gun magazines.

When I was a brand-new Deputy Sheriff I had to buy a new duty weapon. My choice was, and still is, a Colt Officer's .45 ACP. Before I picked it up from my dealer I had them do a thorough inspection and adjustment. Their gun smith was a Colt armorer and he made the trigger absolute Series 80 perfection. So I stroll in to pick it up and there's a couple of Fudds standing around drinking cofee, wearing flannel shirts and hunting coats. One of them started on me about how I needed this or that special modification or doodad before the thing would really ever amount to anything. The owner of the shop jumped in and stated clearly that what I was buying wasn't a toy like they were accustomed to seeing, that it was a serious tool for serious business and his gun smith had it ready for me to be willing to bet my life on it. They didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

We get Fudds on this board every once in a while spouting off all sorts of downright dangerous information and cite their experience as a hunter as their authority. Every once in a while a politician will get a hold of a Fudd and have him go around talking like some sort of expert.

The entire thread can be found at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#361725

The disinterested reader will quickly notice that there is little new under the
gun control sun...

[Darb]

60. You can't shoot straight.

Practice.

And you haven't figured out jack shit, except how to facilitate mass murder via your "right" to have toys and be a bad shot.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Gonna stick with the Phelpsing and Fuddism? Fine- heckling from nonparticipating bystanders...

...never did bother me all that much.

[Darb]

70. Non-participating in facilitating mass murder? Exactly right.

You on the other hand................

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Don't mealy-mouth it. Have the courage of your convictions and spit it out.

There's an amnesty on timeouts, so the worst you can get is a hide

[Darb]

83. I thank you, really I do,

for the death that your "hobby", or your cowardice, or whatever it is that makes you defend a right that doesn't exist. You are the problem. Own it. You make it easier for a kook to get a weapon that can kill dozens in seconds. You make it easier for the hopeless and helpless to act out in anger and revenge.

You do. Not me. You do. All because you want a blankey. Man up, coward. Live in this world without a blanket.

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. I love the smell of undeserved and unearned self-righteousness in the morning

It smells like...gun control advocacy.

[pablo_marmol]

89. "Man up, coward. Live in this world without a blanket."

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Comedy gold! A person who needs to resort to infantile insults tells another to "man up".

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. No different from heckling by a middle schooler- let them get it out of their system

Judging by the contents of my interlocutor's posts, it may actually be
heckling by a middle schooler.

Oh well, something shiny will undoubtedly come along sooner or later, and then...

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. "Man up"? How unsurprisingly sexist of you...

[Aristus]

5. I don't know why the scared-of-their-own-shadows gun freaks are upset about this.

"Going postal" is so 1980-90's. Nowadays, you can get shot anywhere, at any time, for any reason or no reason. Shit, with so many other targets of opportunity out there for the gun-crazies, i.e. schools, churches, schools, movie theaters, schools, gas stations, schools, etc, a post office is probably one of the safest places one can be, other than one's own home basement-bunker...

[hack89]

8. While it is security theater in reality, I have no problem with laws like this.

I just know that they won't stop a mass killer determined to kill people.

[The Second Stone]

10. The government is protected from guns on government property

but the public kind of isn't. This is crappy analysis.

[Dont call me Shirley]

11. Good!

[yallerdawg]

15. The NRA slippery slope.

First, post offices. Then, post office parking lots.

Next, public roads leading to post offices. Then, mailboxes on private property.

Then, homes attached to mail boxes.

"They're coming after our guns!"

[Deuce]

17. Appropriate decision....

[bemildred]

19. It's just not the same court without Scalia.

[Paladin]

25. Not even Scalia viewed the 2nd Amendment as absolute.

As evil as Fat Tony was, he made mention of reasonable controls on the 2nd in the infamous Heller decision.

[bemildred]

31. Yeah, but you know he just did it to annoy somebody. nt

[Paladin]

36. And he succeeded, the malignant old bastard. (nt)

[TheDormouse]

28. could be that the cons on the Court want to wait until they get another majority

If you're a hardcore ideologue, why take up the case of an appeal that could turn out against your position?

[Brother_Love]

30. I don't see the relevance of the parking lot part. So the gun owner parks across the street.

So anyone who parks across the street in a public parking space and walks across the street to the PO can be suspect of having a gun in the car? Wow

[struggle4progress]

33. "But ...but ... I'm scared to buy stamps when I can't carry my gun!"

[fasttense]

34. Those weapon restrictions in post offices and their parking lots were passed after postal workers

started shooting and killing their former employees and co-workers. Where do you think the statement going postal came from? Postal workers were the first mass shooters. The parking lot was added when after shooting everyone in sight, one former postal worker went back to the parking lot, got his other weapon, and continued shooting.

Glad to see some judges remember why those restriction were required in the first place. Since those restrictions were passed, mass shooting at post offices severely decreased.

[yellowcanine]

63. So how am I suppose to protect myself from Postal Workers going postal?