FPC files suit against no carry in Post Offices law

[Krogen]

Looks to me like they are't picking their fights at all.
They are jumping into every fight they can.
Bumpstocks, pistol braces, firearms prohibitions without due process, red flag laws, prohibited carry at the PO - they seem to be pushing hard on all fronts.
About time someone did, IMO....

But... but.... SAF is based here - in our state - and I see little evidence they're fighting recent legislation on magazines, semi-autos and delayed background checks. They're eager to fight distant battles but neglect their home state.

 

[Well Armed]

The government prohibits guns in schools, military bases, federal court houses and other buildings, etc.... I doubt that the SCOTUS or any federal judges in general will support anything that might remotely give citizens the right to be armed around them or other government controlled agencies. It doesn't matter if it goes against 2A or if they have to hypocritically go against previous rulings. They simply will use mental gymnastics to reach whatever conclusion they want.

Move along. Nothing to see here!

 

[BC38]

So, when you ship a firearm USPS you are in violation. Good thing they don't require that you state contents.

AFAIK, unless you are an FFL, shipping firearms through the USPS
is already illegal.
Please correct me if I am wrong....

 

[BC38]

But... but.... SAF is based here - in our state - and I see little evidence they're fighting recent legislation on magazines, semi-autos and delayed background checks. They're eager to fight distant battles but neglect their home state.

Umm, OK, AFAIK, the SAF and the FPC are two separate organizations - with the same or similar goals.

So I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Unless you are trying to point out that the SAF is less effective than the FPC.

Please clarify...

 

[Krogen]

Umm, OK, AFAIK, the SAF and the FPC are two separate organizations - with the same or similar goals.

So I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Unless you are trying to point out that the SAF is less effective than the FPC.

Please clarify...

I guess I went off with a pet peeve about SAF, and you were referring to FPC. The original post indicated SAF had joined in the lawsuit.

 

[ladder13]

AFAIK, unless you are an FFL, shipping firearms through the USPS
is already illegal.
Please correct me if I am wrong....

You can ship long guns, I’ve done it often.

432 Mailability | Postal Explorer

May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Makes zero sense. . .

I think that is the point being made; it makes no more sense to restrict sober driving than it does to restrict lawful firearms possession and usage.

 

[BC38]

But... but.... SAF is based here - in our state - and I see little evidence they're fighting recent legislation on magazines, semi-autos and delayed background checks. They're eager to fight distant battles but neglect their home state.

As I see it they only have the resources to fight only so many battles at one time.

They seem to be going after the NATIONAL issues first, because they affect so many more people. Bump stocks and pistol braces affect millions nation-wide. Our Washington laws only affect a small subset of the millions of gun owners across the country.

Hopefully they win enough of those National level cases to start working their way down the list to the State and even Local level battles.