Armed robbery and government mandated defenselessness in St. Louis

October 27, 11:56 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

     Oleg Volk photo

A mail carrier was robbed while on his route this weekend in St. Louis.

A reward is being offered for the information that convicts the person who robbed a postal carrier in north St. Louis Saturday afternoon.

The suspect approached the male letter carrier at about three o'clock Saturday afternoon, in the 4900 block of Theodore. Postal Inspector Dan Taylor says the suspect pulled a gun on him. He didn't steal any mail, but took the carrier's personal items.

The mail carrier may be considered "lucky," because this predator "only" wanted his possessions (including his dignity), rather than his life.  That, unfortunately, is not something one can count on when preyed upon by a thug.

Robberies, of course, are commonplace, and aside from the fact that this one was local, my particular interest in it may seem peculiar.  The reason I bring it up was brought to my attention by National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, who tells us of a court finding that a total ban of firearms, in post office parking lots, is not an infringement.  Here's the "reasoning":

[T]he Postal Service owned the parking lot...This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power...[because] the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks...it falls under the "sensitive places" exception.

The defendant, Clarence Paul Dorosan, is a postal worker who had a handgun locked in his glove compartment.  Obviously, if that's not allowed, then mail carriers walking their routes while armed isn't, either.  At least one north St. Louis thug appreciates that.

-----------

Today marks the 14th anniversary of my becoming a survivor of "assault weapon" violence.  I talked about it some on my blog a year ago.

It was thirteen years ago today that at Ft. Bragg, just such a loser opened fire on us early in the morning as we were beginning what was to be a four mile run. As mass shootings go, this one could have been a lot worse, with one man, Captain (posthumously promoted to Major) Stephen Mark Badger, killed. Another was paralyzed, while sixteen others sustained wounds of varying (but lesser, at least in the long term) severity. Armed with an AR-15 (and a couple other firearms), and with such a "target rich environment," our loser could potentially have done far more damage than he did.

In my time as a paratrooper, that was the closest I ever came to "combat."  I bring it up not to try to impress anyone (it would be a pretty lame attempt, if I were trying to), but as a counter to a favorite gambit of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby--trotting out loved ones of people killed with guns, or people who survived a shooting, and portraying them as having some special insights into the gun rights vs. restrictive gun law debate, in order to bolster the argument for more gun laws.  As I pointed out a year ago:

I like my chances of surviving large numbers of so-called "assault weapons" in private hands. It's the potential of the government trying to take them away that I fear.