KBCraig
Regular Member
Thank you for agreeing with my point.
I'm not sure why you're arguing against my agreement, but... hell, it's OCDO, and you and solus wouldn't have anything else to do if you didn't fight allies.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Open Carrying on Postal Property
- Thread starter color of law
- Start date
I'm not sure why you're arguing against my agreement, but... hell, it's OCDO, and you and solus wouldn't have anything else to do if you didn't fight allies.
whoa their mate...indiscriminate personal attacks against other member(s) is a violation of forum rules...
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!! [https://xf.opencarry.org/index.php?help/rules/]
and obviously a trademark of an Agent provocateur, and troll per established MW Dictionary definition...
Mate, remember it was you KB who stated on 23 April 2019, on this very forum, quote:
Speaking of fellow legislators...
On Organization Day, 2019, I met a fellow liberty-leaning Republican rep who also happened to be a fan of my favorite MLB team.
After pleasantries, he said something about some political issue or the other. I agreed with him. And then he launched into a tirade about how wrong I was, and how I was a F***** idiot. unquote.
Carrying an unregistered pistol
Had an interesting conversation/argument earlier and I’m still thinking about it and thought I would get others opinions. So basically the conversation started over 80% and how to build one and still comply with Michigan’s ridiculous registration law (you just fill out the form as the buyer and...
xf.opencarry.org
NOT ME, so follow OC's forum rules like you would follow your NH legislative rules!
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Per your post #12 says: - "Yes, it's always been misquoted as applying "on a federal installation". It doesn't."
Your post #12 appears to be saying that 18 USC 930 does NOT apply to federal installations (military installations).
So, I'm at a loss to understand what you think I'm agreeing with. And I don't agree with anybody unless I specifically say so.
KBCraig
Regular Member
A disagreement is not a personal attack.
KB, disagreement, allow me to refresh just your recent tirades:
post on 29 April 2021, thread - carry in Detroit, specifically directed towards me, quote:
Welcome to the world of our resident troll, who will argue with himself if no one else is available. Unquote.
above thread's commentary directed at two forum members...
As mentioned KB, you truly believe your out of the blue ad hominem personal attack(s) towards this and other forum member(s) could possibly be considered a disagreement by anyone, how could it, KB?
sidebar: KB, et a., Merriam Webster definition
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
www.merriam-webster.com
post on 29 April 2021, thread - carry in Detroit, specifically directed towards me, quote:
Welcome to the world of our resident troll, who will argue with himself if no one else is available. Unquote.
Carrying an unregistered pistol
Please provide Michigan case law upholding registration of firearms, Section 28.422a, as constitutional. I agree it’s not but never the less it is there and I don’t recommend being a test case. The question is about staying within the law as written, not the constitutionality of the law. If...
forum.opencarry.org
above thread's commentary directed at two forum members...
As mentioned KB, you truly believe your out of the blue ad hominem personal attack(s) towards this and other forum member(s) could possibly be considered a disagreement by anyone, how could it, KB?
sidebar: KB, et a., Merriam Webster definition
Definition of ad hominem
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Definition of AD HOMINEM
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect; marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
I'm awaiting a response.
mlawson
Member
Not sure if this helps at all...
www.lawinsider.com
Federal Installation Definition | Law Insider
Sample Contracts and Business Agreements
www.lawinsider.com
mlawson
Member
Federal Facility Law
definitions.uslegal.com
Federal Facility Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
According to 15 USCS § 205c (9), [Title 15. Commerce and Trade; Chapter 6. Weights and Measures and Standard Time; Metric Conversion] the term Federal facility means “any public building (as defined u
Forgive me mlawson, et al., for being significantly confused...but your cite lists, under paragraph "E" military installations, but your cite also provided a cite which defines public building, referencing your provided cite, quote,Federal Facility Law
Federal Facility Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
According to 15 USCS § 205c (9), [Title 15. Commerce and Trade; Chapter 6. Weights and Measures and Standard Time; Metric Conversion] the term Federal facility means “any public building (as defined u
"...any public building (as defined under section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 612)[)] [40 USCS § 3301..." unquote.
40 U.S.C. 612)[)] [40 USCS § 3301 states the definition of public building, quote:
(5) Public building.—The term “public building”—
(A) means a building, whether for single or multitenant occupancy, and its grounds, approaches, and appurtenances, which is generally suitable for use as office or storage space or both by one or more federal agencies or mixed-ownership Government corporations;
(B) includes—
(i) federal office buildings;
(ii) post offices;
(iii) custom houses ;
(iv) courthouses;
(v) appraisers stores;
(vi) border inspection facilities;
(vii) warehouses;
(viii) record centers;
(ix) relocation facilities;
(x) telecommuting centers;
(xi) similar federal facilities; and
(xii) any other buildings or construction projects the inclusion of which the President considers to be justified in the public interest; unquote. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/3301
wait a moment...no mention of military installations ??
by the way, if military installation(s) are considered "public buildings" why is access restricted for J.Q. Public citizen ??
[classified handling buildings on military installations would be a concern, of course!]
clear as mud...
KBCraig
Regular Member
Since this thread is discussing nuances regarding carry on postal property, per se., i found an interesting snippet defining employee, per 5 USC 2105 (e), quote:
(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title. Unquote
these kind folk are, by this USC considered "federal employees", quote
(a) For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—
(1) appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—
(A) the President;
(B) a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;
(C) a member of a uniformed service;
(D) an individual who is an employee under this section;
(E) the head of a Government controlled corporation; or
(F) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned under section 709(c) of title 32;
unquote. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2105#c
so in 18 USC 930 (A)'s definition of federal facilities, [per 40 USCS § 3301 Postal property is in the definition] unequivocally states federal employees are present...
yet 5 USC 2015 (e) [cited/quoted above] flat out states PO workers are NOT considered 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' by federal law!!
me thinks the four hungry tigers are turning to ghee...
(e) Except as otherwise provided by law, an employee of the United States Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission is deemed not an employee for purposes of this title. Unquote
these kind folk are, by this USC considered "federal employees", quote
(a) For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—
(1) appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—
(A) the President;
(B) a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress;
(C) a member of a uniformed service;
(D) an individual who is an employee under this section;
(E) the head of a Government controlled corporation; or
(F) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned under section 709(c) of title 32;
unquote. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2105#c
so in 18 USC 930 (A)'s definition of federal facilities, [per 40 USCS § 3301 Postal property is in the definition] unequivocally states federal employees are present...
Federal facility
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.yet 5 USC 2015 (e) [cited/quoted above] flat out states PO workers are NOT considered 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' by federal law!!
me thinks the four hungry tigers are turning to ghee...
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
I can assure you that the IRS designates postal employees as federal employees. They are not employees for the purposes of Title 5 only.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
That is not an answer. Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
IRS is kinda bossy since they were never ratified...huh
guess i slipped on my ghee...
KBCraig
Regular Member
You said that 18 USC 930 applies to "federal installations". It clearly does not; it only applies to "federal facilities". The title itself is "Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities" (emphasis added).
Since you have refused to read that section, I'll quote it for you.
(g)As used in this section:
(1)The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
Nothing at all there about "installations". Only buildings or parts thereof.
This is really as simple as federal code gets. It's not complicated at all.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Where did I say that? I'll help you out, I never said that.
Then you say:
"The title itself is "Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities" (emphasis added)."
KB you have been on this forum two months longer than I have. Approaching 14 years. I have written the majority of legal analysis/opinions on this forum, pointing out that I'm not a licensed attorney. That being said, I've also pointed out, many times, that titles of statutes have NO force and effect of law. Apparently you have NOT learned much of anything from this forum in the past 14 years, or read anything posted to this forum. My original post containing a PDF, if you had read it, pointed directly to 18 U.S.C. § 930(g)(1).
Do you really think I don't know what I'm talking about? Really. Even the attorney that owns this forum has never challenged me, let alone a neophyte such as yourself. And if they have I'm sure they have come up on the short end of the stick. And the few times I've been wrong I acknowledge it, standing corrected.
I'll wait for your apology.
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
Here, I'll help you out. You directly challenged my statement that 18 USC 930 doesn't apply to "installations":
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Seriously? You are attributing your statements as though they are mine. That's what progressives do. Well you are a politician.
KBCraig
Regular Member
LOL
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Laugh? That is the first sign of derangement.