Posted on 06/28/2015 8:35:07 AM PDT by rktman
Unfortunately, it is the most appropriate appellation I can come up with for what they are these days.
Regardless of whether they decide for or against us, it is clear that it's become nothing but a unrestrained political institution, with no guide of logic, reason, or decency. You can pretty much guess the way at least 7 of them will rule on any given case, if you look at it from a political point of view. A couple of members bend with the poltical tides, because they have no solid philosophy of their own.
The same Mark Levin who has declared Obama as eligible. I'm not interested in anything he has to say.
So you are a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” crowd?
I’m not going to “get behind” someone who has proven that they can’t be trusted on Constitutional issues.
When I was reading through it, I was struck by the cavalier attitude, both the dissent and the opinion take towards the safety of us, the citizens who supposedly have to obey this ridiculous law. (for myself, this is merely another law restricting my 2nd amendment rights that I was absolutely ignore).
I want to break this down a little bit. So, both the dissent and the majority agreed that it was OK to restrict the 2nd amendment in the building of the post office itself. Now, let's think about that just a little bit, shall we? Let's say you have a package that you need to be delivered through the mail. It is quite valuable, and let's say for the sake of argument that you need a "return receipt requested" for it, as legal protection. So, in oder to do this, that means you need to go to the post office. Leaving aside the parking lot, where the dissent would have granted the primacy of your second amendment rights... Let us say that you foolishly follow the law, and are completely disarmed. You take your package into the post office. It is admitted as a part of the record, (and is thus within judicial notice) that there is no security onsite.
Think about that for just a second. Your government has by law disarmed you, and they've taken no actions to protect your safety. Lets say you are robbed of your valuables while in the building. Can you sue the government for not preventing it? Nope. They accept no responsibility for protecting you, despite the fact that they have, at the same time, removed your ability to protect yourself. This is a long settled matter of law. The government has no duty whatsoever to protect any individual.
Even worse, let's say that not only are you robbed, but you are injured by your assailant, who, being a criminal, doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to laws against bring firearms on the property. What is your recourse? Again, you have none! Your life, your safety, and your property are of no concern whatsoever to tbe government. They don't care! Your life has no value or significance whatsoever to them. Once you realize this, you more fully understand the relationship between you and your government.
In my not so humble opinion, if they are going to remove your ability to defend yourself while on their property, they should have absolute liability for anything that happens on that property. (The same acknowledgment of liability needs to be more fully understood by private establishments as well. - if you disarm me, you accept the liability consequences of same).
For this reason, despite the stupidity of the justices, I find this ruling to be useful to illiuminate the status of citizens as it concerns our feral government.
Why is it illegal to carry a firearm in your vehicle or on your person in or around a post office?
About 20 or so years ago, there were a few postal employees who apparently broke under the strain of the regimented authority of the post office organisation and decided to remedy the situation by knocking off a bunch of folks with firearms on the premises. I can't remember the exact details of how many there were, but if I recall correctly, it was a string of about 3 different people (all postal service employees) over the course of a year or so. This brought the phrase "going postal" into the American lexicon.
Now, the really interesting thing about all this is what they did to "fix" the problem, especially when you think about it just a little bit. So. you have postal postal service employees, and you fix it by ..... disarming their customers! Wow. Think about that for just a second. At the time, people were actually concerned about 'postal' postals, so perhaps they might start thinking about making sure they didn't end up being an unarmed victim of same. "We can't have that" says the feral government, because it might start people thinking about who the master and who the slave really is, in the relationship between the two. So, they passed a law saying you couldn't have any firearm on "their" property.
Kinda puts things in a little bit better perspective.
My gun goes where I go, and I check my PO box regularly.
Great analysis! I’m copying it for reference.
Thanks! There’s always that “they’re watching us” thingee...
I remove the question mark at the end of my last post......
If so-called ‘conservatives’ like Levin had defended the Constitution, Obama could have been blocked from usurping the presidency. His job with ABC radio was more important.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. I refuse to dismiss a good idea because it came from a bad source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.