I just swung by the local post office, trying to find a correctly-sized shipping box, and I noticed once again the signs prohibiting firearms and other deadly weapons on USPS property.
This, next to a dozen or so good ol' Alaskan boys with an assortment of Leatherman pouches and Buck knives. No weapons? Yeah, right. Try to find an Alaskan without a knife; I'll wait.
But as an intellectual exercise, I wonder:
a) since the General Government* is a creation of the States and the
Constitution they adopted, it follows that the G.G. cannot exceed its own Constitutionally-established authority; and
b) said Constitution states that the people have a pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits Congress from making any law which infringes upon that right; and
c) any entity created by a contract has only the powers which the signers codified in writing therein; so therefore,
The USPS prohibition against firearms is prima facie unconstitutional. The federal judge who likewise ruled, a few months back, that the G.G. has the right to declare some of its land off-limits to firearms was wrong, too. Or, to put it another way, a
federal entity must not restrict a federally-protected right on federal property - it's a contradiction to do so; it's the one place
where those rights should be the most zealously guarded.
I do understand the concept of creating a weapons-free zone around a VIP, such as the President; it makes sense to establish a safe perimeter. But that's not tied to the land ... it moves with the person.
That being said, it's the law of the land whether Constitutional or no. I won't violate it, because incurring the wrath of the G.G. is definitely not a good idea, when it can be avoided.
But it is another aggravation; there seem to be an awful lot of them these days.
*Thomas Jefferson's preferred title for it; who am I to second-guess him?