Armed civilian stops mass shooting

[Insignificant bill]

I've argued the same thing when I found out the police would not investigate fender benders in a large (!) supermarket parking lot because it was "Private Property." There were 6 other stores also serviced by their "Private Property."

Shy little retiring subservient inoffensive pussyfootin' me did not want to argue with the PD, but I finally arm-bended the supermarket to release the surveillance tapes... which they had said they wouldn't without a police investigation. Catch 44.

I have every respect :eyeroll: for a homeowner or an individual private retail owner who wants to have a gun free zone in his space. His stupid choice and welcome to it, but surely there has to be some limitation on "that" right in large retail areas accessible to <ahem> "anybody" <koff-koff>. No offense to "anybody" if you're one of them.

Indiana and other States have it right. The owners have the right to ask you to leave. If your gun is concealed no one knows it.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Where can one find a video of the shooting?

The only video I've seen doesn't show any of the action, just frightened shoppers frozen in place with police asking how many people are there.

When I wrote "I saw", I meant I saw it in a news article. My eyes are no way good enough to see that on an internet video!!!

 

[old lady new shooter]

Was that woman born that stupid or did she have to practice?

She gets PAID to be stupid. By Bloomberg.

 

[old lady new shooter]

From the article cited below:

> [Girlfriend] Shay hid behind a kiosk. Then investigators said Eli, within seconds, stopped the suspect.
> They tell 13News the 22-year-old pulled out the pistol he was carrying under the “Constitutional Carry”
> law, steadied himself against a pole and fired ten rounds at the gunman from about 40 yards away.
>
> The suspect tried to go back into the bathroom, but instead fell to the ground.
>
> “His actions were nothing short of heroic. He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun.
> Was very proficient in that, was tactically sound and as he moved to close in on the suspect, [presumably
> after gunman down --meh] he was also motioning for people to exit behind him,” Greenwood Police Chief
> Jim Ison said about Eli’s actions. “Many people would have died last night if not for a responsible armed
> citizen that took action very quickly within the first two minutes of this shooting.”
https://www.wpta21.com/2022/07/19/g...ooting-called-hero-by-his-girlfriends-family/

Police chief later issued a correction, based on the surveillance video the time between BG's first shot and GG neutralizing him was 15 seconds, not two minutes.

There already seems to be some conflation of defender's movement during firing vs movement after the gunman went down.
I'm sure the MSM will now go determine the distance between the pole and the bathroom door w/ a tape measure.

Stand by. . . .

I took it to mean he started from 40 yards (or however far it turns out to be) and continued shooting as he got closer. BG may not have gone down after one shot, or he might have gone down and then gotten up again. (Yes, that happens.)

 

[citizenconn]

I've been looking for it, with no success.

I keep turning the numbers over in my head and I'm just kind of amazed. 10 shots with an 80% hit rate, under pressure, at 40+ yards. I want that young man on my team.

Young eyes definitely helped. At 55 I rely on muscle memory rather than aiming when using a pistol.

 

[Spats McGee]

Young eyes definitely helped. At 55 I rely on muscle memory rather than aiming when using a pistol.

No doubt. When you get older, though, you do tend to remember where the bathrooms are.

 

[230RN]

"You're safer with me around with a gun than you are with me around without a gun."

Made up that bit of whimsy once, haven't used it yet. Was one of those "I wish I'd thought to say" things after a date and I hugged and she found my sidearm.

Feel free to use it in your latest novel, no charge.

Terry, 230RN

 

[old lady new shooter]

Nope.

But I totally understand, since you can't even have a gun in your car in the postal parking lot.

I think gun in the car in the parking lot is OK, but I'm not happy with the idea of leaving $1000 in my car. (Probably lived in L.A. too long.) So instead of efficiently including the post office in a group of errands, I just go there and come home.

I do sometimes HAVE to go there, for example if somebody orders something that won't fit in the mailbox slot, I go to the post office to deposit it into the package drop. They don't offer pickup service for media mail.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think gun in the car in the parking lot is OK,

No.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I've argued the same thing when I found out the police would not investigate fender benders in a large (!) supermarket parking lot because it was "Private Property." There were 6 other stores also serviced by their "Private Property."

Shy little retiring subservient inoffensive pussyfootin' me did not want to argue with the PD, but I finally arm-bended the supermarket to release the surveillance tapes... which they had said they wouldn't without a police investigation. Catch 44.

I have every respect :eyeroll: for a homeowner or an individual private retail owner who wants to have a gun free zone in his space. His stupid choice and welcome to it, but surely there has to be some limitation on "that" right in large retail areas accessible to <ahem> "anybody" <koff-koff>. No offense to "anybody" if you're one of them.

In L.A. by the time I left most grocery stores had armed guards of various flavors. One store where I used to shop had them stationed at the doors. But they wouldn't do anything if something happened in the parking lot.

 

[old lady new shooter]

No.

Are you saying the report cited earlier by John Shirley (https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/index.html) is inaccurate?

 

[Kleanbore]

Are you saying the report cited earlier by John Shirley (https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/index.html) is inaccurate?

It was overtaken by events.

 

[old lady new shooter]

It was overtaken by events.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, can you please clarify?

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, can you please clarify?

Later ruling.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Really? I thought the Supreme Court has ruled that your auto is an extension of your home.

ETA: evidently, car=home depends on the state. However, it is legal to carry in parking lots of POs.

Gotta "nope" this one on legal to carry in parking lots of USPS.

The article you linked was from 2013, where U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch ruled it was legal.

However, this was appealed and in 2015 the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Tab Bonidy by 2 to 1.

The Supreme Court was petitioned on this case and the petition was denied in 2016.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles\15-746.htm


THAT SAID...will more recent Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment have an impact on this? Perhaps. I would certainly entertain the opinions of others on this.

But right now, 36CFR232.1 Conduct on Postal Property is still in effect:

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

The punishment under this code is:

(p) Penalties and other law.

(1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.


And the USPS also posts signs saying violators are subject to 18USC930 for penalties for carrying IN the post office. This is a much more significant infraction.


Oh...and how does the USPS define their property you may ask? As follows:

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to -

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

 

[old lady new shooter]

.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Gotta "nope" this one on legal to carry in parking lots of USPS.

The article you linked was from 2013, where U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch ruled it was legal.

However, this was appealed and in 2015 the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Tab Bonidy by 2 to 1.

The Supreme Court was petitioned on this case and the petition was denied in 2016.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles\15-746.htm


THAT SAID...will more recent Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment have an impact on this? Perhaps. I would certainly entertain the opinions of others on this.

But right now, 36CFR232.1 Conduct on Postal Property is still in effect:

(l) Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

The punishment under this code is:

(p) Penalties and other law.

(1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.


And the USPS also posts signs saying violators are subject to 18USC930 for penalties for carrying IN the post office. This is a much more significant infraction.


Oh...and how does the USPS define their property you may ask? As follows:

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to -

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

I vaguely recall discussions here that concluded that if the post office shares a parking lot with other buildings, a person could have a firearm in their car there.

But as I said earlier, my way of dealing with the prohibition is just to go directly to the post office and directly home.

Interestingly, I have not seen a sign as described above stating that carrying a firearm is prohibited, the post office near me just has one saying something like it's a felony to assault a postal worker.

 

[Craig_AR]

I vaguely recall discussions here that concluded that if the post office shares a parking lot with other buildings, a person could have a firearm in their car there.

The distinction is whether the USPS owns the parking lot (their property) or is in a store front or building in a commercial area with multiple businesses sharing the parking lot. In the latter case the post office property is only the post office; the parking lot is owned by the shopping center, not the post office. I frequent three post offices near me. For two of them the entire surrounding parking lot property is clearly all USPS property; in the third the post office is in a store front next to a pharmacy in the same building. I can park in front of the pharmacy with gun in car legally.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The distinction is whether the USPS owns the parking lot (their property) or is in a store front or building in a commercial area with multiple businesses sharing the parking lot. In the latter case the post office property is only the post office; the parking lot is owned by the shopping center, not the post office. I frequent three post offices near me. For two of them the entire surrounding parking lot property is clearly all USPS property; in the third the post office is in a store front next to a pharmacy in the same building. I can park in front of the pharmacy with gun in car legally.

Not quite in accordance with the verbiage of 39CFR232.1:

(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to -

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.


If the building and/or grounds are owned by the government OR rented/leased, then it's "real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service".

I believe IN GENERAL you are correct. But it pretty much has to fall under the exceptions of (i) and (ii). It really depends on how the area is laid out, in my opinion, as some such commercial areas can lean one way or the other depending on the location of the Post Office with respect to building and lot construction. And posting...can't forget that.

 

[Hunter 08]

So why does he need more training, other than the fact that everyone in theory can benefit from more training. And more range time is almost always a fun thing, except right now in Texas. My last range trip a couple weeks ago it was 109 degrees. My body was 85% Gatorade for a couple days.

Don't become complacent. More trigger and range will help proficiency. I'm all for Constitutional Carry, but I'd want everyone to become familiar and have some range time to keep familiarity with their firearm.

 

[bdickens]

. I really hope he goes out and seeks training or goes to the range more frequently.

it seems like his training was quite adequate.

 

[armoredman]

Agreed. He might teach others a thing or two...

 

[Robert]

We've wandered all over the place with this one. Let's call it a day.