(PART 355)


>>> "You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before." <<<


Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.

As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every
package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it
contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the

Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or
something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think
Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a
potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.

Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE
supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of
the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers.
The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between
the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).

Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and
responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it
from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't
fulfill its legal obligations?


Do the CTers of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not
meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell)
the rifles they were ordering in 1963?

>>> "By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product." <<<

Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to
do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway).
And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes that I supplied
earlier proves that fact.

The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any
laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.


Whenever the topic of Oswald getting a gun through the mail comes up,
I'm always reminded of an episode of a TV show ("The Fugitive"), made
in 1966, not too many years after the JFK assassination.

Now, I know I'll probably get blasted by the CTers for even mentioning
a "TV show" script when talking about John Kennedy's murder, but this
episode of "The Fugitive" always pops into my mind anyway when
thinking about the subject of "mail-order rifles".

The TV episode I'm talking about is called "In A Plain Paper Wrapper",
and it co-stars a young Kurt Russell as the leader of this local gang
of kids in a small U.S. town.

Kurt and his buddies send away for a rifle by mail-order (and then
they use it to try and capture "the fugitive", Dr. Richard Kimble).
One of the kids in the gang, a 12-year-old boy, goes to the local post
office and comes out with the mail-order rifle in his hands.

A 12-year-old boy picked it up. And the box was marked "firearms"
too, if my memory serves correctly.

Now, I'm guessing that famed producer Quinn Martin (who helmed "The
Fugitive" from 1963 to 1967) probably always aimed for a certain sense
of realism and accuracy in the scripts that ended up ultimately being
filmed for the TV audience to watch.

So I can't help but wonder if the script for "Paper Wrapper" wasn't
actually pretty accurate with respect to the scene which has this
small boy able to walk out of a U.S. post office with a rifle in his

Yes, this "TV" example of a boy picking up a rifle at the post office
is proof of NOTHING with respect to this forum discussion about Lee
Oswald's rifle. I'll readily admit that. And I'll even stress that

But I also can't help but wonder if that very same gun-purchasing and
gun-obtaining scenario hasn't played itself out in just that way in
hundreds of post offices around the USA over the years.

And, as CTers like to point out so often when discussing Oswald and
his mail-order rifle, evidently Oswald could have gone into any gun
shop in the state of Texas and walked out with a rifle that "could
never be traced" (to quote from Oliver Stone's movie).*

* = BTW, I've always found that so-called fact to be very hard to
believe. Didn't gun-shop owners, even in 1963, require purchasers to
present any kind of I.D. at all? Seems very strange to me. But, I'll
admit, I don't have the slightest idea what the regulations were in
Texas for purchasing firearms in the year 1963.

But if it, in fact, is true that Oswald could have bought a rifle that
"could never be traced" at a gun store in Texas, then what did Klein's
do that was any different than what the gun-shop owners were doing,
circa 1963, when it came to gun purchases (from the standpoint of
ensuring that the weapon being sold was going to end up in the hands
of the right person)?

Seems to me that the answer to that last question is --- Nothing.

David Von Pein
October 19, 2008