Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

cabrera wrote:Well ZeSpectre's reply seem to hit right on the money.
I especially like the "gray area" comment by the AG.
Translated the between the lines would mean...

"It could be reasonably arguable in court but you will incur ridiculous unreimbursable costs defending yourself & we would make sure you lose so we can save face" <LOL>
I think I'll drop my FedEx packages elsewhere!

Yes, it means you bear all of the risk while for them it is just another day at the office.

ProShooter wrote:

user wrote:

Moccasin wrote: But someone is going to have to be arrested and go to trial

User - are you aware of this opinion?

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/un ... .0.wpd.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 08-31197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee v. CLARENCE PAUL DOROSAN,
Defendant – Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 08-CR-42-1....

Yes. I was aware of it. This is an example of really bad lawyering, in my opinion. The defendant's lawyer allowed the U.S. to frame the case, and it appears that his response was, "Yeah, but, like, the Second Amendment, y'know!". There was apparently no discussion about how the USPS as a property owner is constrained by federal statutes governing the possession of firearms in federal facilities, nor was there any discussion of the defendant's right under the statute to carry "for other lawful purposes". This is so depressing. This case basically does absolutely nothing except to let the district court put the postal patron away for some time. It is certainly not precedent here.

One thing it is likely to do is to give the prosecutors fodder for straw-man arguments in the future. That is to say, no matter what the defense really is, they'll argue that the defendant is merely reciting the second amendment as a magical incantation. They routinely treat the Constitution as a historical artifact with no legal compulsion, and the federal judiciary accepts that.

The Second Amendment argument should have been a good one, really. The exercise of arbitrary power in the absence of adherence to controlling law is tyranny. And that's what we've got when the United States treats its charter as a mere historical artifact.

user wrote:Yes. I was aware of it. This is an example of really bad lawyering, in my opinion. The defendant's lawyer allowed the U.S. to frame the case, and it appears that his response was, "Yeah, but, like, the Second Amendment, y'know!". There was apparently no discussion about how the USPS as a property owner is constrained by federal statutes governing the possession of firearms in federal facilities, nor was there any discussion of the defendant's right under the statute to carry "for other lawful purposes". This is so depressing. This case basically does absolutely nothing except to let the district court put the postal patron away for some time. It is certainly not precedent here.

One thing it is likely to do is to give the prosecutors fodder for straw-man arguments in the future. That is to say, no matter what the defense really is, they'll argue that the defendant is merely reciting the second amendment as a magical incantation. They routinely treat the Constitution as a historical artifact with no legal compulsion, and the federal judiciary accepts that.

The Second Amendment argument should have been a good one, really. The exercise of arbitrary power in the absence of adherence to controlling law is tyranny. And that's what we've got when the United States treats its charter as a mere historical artifact.

Excellent response! Thank you, and I agree with you.


I just avoid the post office altogether. Haven't been in one in years.

Don't overlook usps.com. You can have supplies and stamps delivered. FOr my e-Bay stuff I just order up new Flat Rate boxes & envelopes and print the postage either thru PayPal or usps.com. In short, I have no use for the actual building.