FPC and SAF File Lawsuit on
 Post Office Carry Prohibition

The Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation plus some individual plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 5th Circuit Federal District Court regarding the prohibition of carrying a concealed firearm into or on the grounds of any US Post Office. They seek to have the court declare that such a prohibition is unconstitutional under previous Supreme Court Decisions. This is good news for us since we rent a PO Box at the local facility and it is a pain to have to disarm to merely stroll in and get our mail.

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms reports on a previous ruling against the prohibition:

As FPC and SAF point out in their initial complaint, at least one other district court judge has already determined that making postal facilities “gun-free zones” violates the Constitution. In United States v. Ayala, a postal worker was indicted for possessing a handgun after he carried his concealed pistol inside a postal facility in Tampa. Emmanual Ayala has a valid Florida carry license, and says he had his pistol with him while hauling packages in a semi. Rather than leave the gun behind in his vehicle, Ayala kept it secured inside a fanny pack when he would enter postal facilities, but in September of 2022 he was stopped by postal inspection officials and was ultimately arrested by the Tampa police for bringing his gun into the facility.

In January of this year, however, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle threw out the charges against Ayala, ruling that the government had not demonstrated a historical tradition of barring guns in postal facilities.

This issue will probably be kicking around in the courts over the course of a couple of years. Keep in mind that it is VERY IMPORTANT to get the anti gun Democrats out of the Whitehouse and congressional majorities or this may never be resolved. Support the SAF and FPC and, most of all, support pro-gun choices for elected office at any level of government.

Yes – we’re back to blogging about our rights as Americans more frequently, we hope.

Continue to pray and support those who need it.

Misguided Misinformation

Via The Patriot Post:


President Obama called the Arizona [immigration] law misguided. What’s misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government’s ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored.

 – CNN’s Jack Cafferty

Emphasis mine.

As a future resident of Arizona, I emailed Governor Jan Brewer and congratulated her on the Arizona immigration enforcement law and the Arizona Constitutional Carry law.

Packing Light

SW442When I’m puttering around the house and yard, I have this little ensemble clipped inside my waistband. It’s my little S&W 442 .38 caliber J-frame (loaded with plus-P anti-personnel* rounds) in a Bianchi leather clip-on holster.

When the weather is a little warmer, she rides in a special holster on my leg under the sun dress. Either way, she is light enough that you just might forget you’re packing and venture somewhere you shouldn’t under such circumstances – not that I’ve ever done that, of course.

* One of our commenters described hollow-points as “limited penetration” rounds. He says that description is less apt to get a reaction from liberals than “anti-personnel.”

No Utah CCW at Gunblogger Rendezvous in Reno

silver-legacy.jpgThis may put a crimp in our plans to go to the Gun Blogger Rendezvous at the Silver Legacy Hotel (image) in Reno September 10,11,12 . . .

According the the NRA-ILA, Utah and Florida CCW permits will not be honored after July 1, 2009 in the state of Nevada.

Effective, July 1, Nevada will no longer recognize Right-to-Carry permits from Utah or Florida.

. . .

The Nevada DPS dropped Utah because it does not have a live fire requirement, which is a part of Nevada’s training requirements. When the Nevada DPS first began its state by state audit of Right-to-Carry laws in 2007, DPS admitted to NRA representatives that they overlooked the live fire training requirement. After further review, they determined that Utah wasn’t similar enough to keep it on the list of recognized states.

Florida will no longer be recognized because its permits are now valid for seven years instead of five.

The USA Carry website says that Nevada is a shall issue state for residents and non-residents with a list of steps to qualify:

Step 1. Meet Requirements
Step 2. Obtain Firearm Training (Usually a course specifically for CCW Permits)
Step 3. Qualify with the weapon or weapons you are adding to the permit.
Step 4. Get Documentation and Payment ready
Step 5. Go to your local CCW office (insert correct wording) and begin the last step of submitting your application. They will also take your fingerprints and take your picture.
Step 6. Wait! Now the paperwork starts. They do a background check, process everything, and then mail your CCW Permit to you in the mail.

Application Fees:
New Permits: $105.00
Renewal: $70.00
Duplicate or change: $25.00

Step number 6 – Wait! – worries me since there are less than 75 days until the Rendezvous. I plan to do some groundwork to see if it’s feasible to get a permit in the time remaining. The trade off is whether it’s worth the $105 application fee (X2 for us) plus Nevada CCW training class and qualification shooting ($???) to get a permit for a state where we seldom travel and that has limited reciprocity at that.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 197!

NCCWH.R. 197, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

Reprinted from the NRA-ILA.

Pistol and Holster Combo

In a couple of months, We’re going to be out and about doing some research for a potential relocation of our residence. Most places we’re going will be CCW positive territory, so I am planning to take along the Glock 30 parked in this Bianchi holster under the winter garb we will need (It’s going to be a lot cooler than we’re used to).

It seems a shame to hide something this purdy under the coat. (Clickable Image)


Dog Day Afternoon

Not much time to blog today, we had to go shopping, fill the tank ($75), sit in the patio and hang out with ‘Bear.’ Tomorrow, the truck to goes for periodic maintenance to the service department and we take the training for our Utah CCW permits.

Our vacation next month will take us to places where the permit is valid, so the maintenance for the truck and the CCW training are mandatory, as far as we’re concerned. Bear is happy for us, as you can see.