Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fjolnirsson on October 20, 2009, 10:17:36 PM
-
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-31197.0.wpd.pdf)
All clear now.
-
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
-
yeah, ok.
-
heller?
-
Heller?
I'm sorry, not tracking. What do you mean by "Heller?"
-
heller?
Heller only disallows bans of firearms on private property under federal law and confirms RKBA as an individual right. It doesn't allow you to enter federal property while carrying.
-
Heller only disallows bans of firearms on private property under federal law and confirms RKBA as an individual right. It doesn't allow you to enter federal property while carrying.
And it only prohibits utter and total gun bans. You can ban 'unusual' guns all day long.
-
So, carrying into a Post Office is...? Still undetermined I take it.
-
What ever happened to "Don't ask, don't tell?"
There are all sorts of things that are illegal that people might do to get through a day safely. Just saying...
-
Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and
staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service
as a place of regular government business, it falls under the "sensitive places"
exception recognized by Heller. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (holding that
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government
buildings . . . .").
Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide
parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in
the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the
ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site.
Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant
burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.
Dude was an employee, using the back lot for parking that is administratively used for mail delivery purposes.
You and me don't have access to that back lot... most post offices fence it off with a gate and barbed wire. It's posted as no unauthorized access.
I'd wager that the public lot (where mail patrons park) would result in a different ruling, for a postal customer rather than an employee.
That being said, don't ask and don't tell.
-
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
What's this mean, Bridgewalker (or Tejon (or ((anyone else) - fistful)))? :laugh:
-
Dude was an employee, using the back lot for parking that is administratively used for mail delivery purposes.
You and me don't have access to that back lot... most post offices fence it off with a gate and barbed wire. It's posted as no unauthorized access.
I'd wager that the public lot (where mail patrons park) would result in a different ruling, for a postal customer rather than an employee.
That being said, don't ask and don't tell.
I am firmly in the Don't ask, don't tell camp. However, despite the part Bridgewalker referenced(which says the case shouldn't be used as precedent or something like that), I am not so sure as you that a ruling elsewhere would go in our favor. I think it would be trotted out in front of the jury long enough to be stuck in the head of the jury, before being disallowed. I see it as one more nail in the coffin for carry in the P.O.
My feelings are that with Heller, the gun control camp(for the most part) got the message that they can't flat out ban guns. Now, they will seek to make a confusing and contradictory mass of rules, laws and regulations which are so confusing that nobody tries to carry any longer.
-
The Justices need to determine the level of scrutiny, which will hopefully happen when they rule on McDonald.
If it comes down to "strict scrutiny" I think there will be a very reasonable challenge to the PO ban on carry on the grounds that it bars activity that is legal in most states in a private "Mailboxes Etc." location which is functionally identical to a Post Office in all areas open to the public in the normal course of business.
What I foresee is the "Park Carry" standard (carry per state law) in all Federal grounds open to the public in the normal course of business.
That would not affect those areas actually deemed "sensitive" enough to require security measures such as fences, gates, counters, posted "employee only" areas, guards, locked doors, personal escorts etc.
-
The Justices need to determine the level of scrutiny, which will hopefully happen when they rule on McDonald.
If it comes down to "strict scrutiny" I think there will be a very reasonable challenge to the PO ban on carry on the grounds that it bars activity that is legal in most states in a private "Mailboxes Etc." location which is functionally identical to a Post Office in all areas open to the public in the normal course of business.
What I foresee is the "Park Carry" standard (carry per state law) in all Federal grounds open to the public in the normal course of business.
That would not affect those areas actually deemed "sensitive" enough to require security measures such as fences, gates, counters, posted "employee only" areas, guards, locked doors, personal escorts etc.
I certainly hope you are right. We've gained a lot of ground the last ten years with regard to guns, ground we never should have lost in the first place. I just keep expecting the other shoe to drop...
-
The "other shoe" appears to be too busy taking away our health care rights to bother with taking away our gun rights.
-
The "other shoe" appears to be too busy taking away our health care rights to bother with taking away our gun rights.
I've had that thought as well...
-
Mixing health care and guns...
I used to work for a medical records hosting company and we offered one of the leading practice management and medical records enterprise suites available... NextGen.
I was thoroughly upset by a template in the medical records system, that is a default shipping item in the product. It asks such questions as:
-Do you own firearms?
-Do you hunt?
-Do you store them locked away?
-How many firearms?
-Do you use them for your profession?
-Do you use them for self defense?
-Do you use them for recreation?
-Do you store them with a trigger lock on them?
-Do you store them unloaded?
This is part of the electronic medical records that your government wants to mandate being centralized and available to a "single payer system" and some widget-pushing bureaucrat to stew over as he decides to allow treatment for whatever ails you.
"Kill the gun owner..." Nah, they'd never think that! It's even a great way to filter out the LEOs from the regular owners just by the "profession" question.
Want to refrain from answering? That's fine... but no government health care if you don't answer all the questions. Precedent is already there: To be eligible for BCBS health care, I have to fill out their annual questionnaire about my health. Why can't the government have one, too?
-
In their [sick] minds guns are a sickness, a form of social pollution and a curse on "the environment." Of course so is Individuality.
-
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
The federal government hasn't decided that the 2nd is incorporated and applies to the states. Thus, although Heller bans bans, the 2nd doesn't protect you from state law, only from federal law.
Since Post offices are government facilities, any state laws authorizing you to carry a handgun are null because the post office is a federal establishment.
So the second amendment only protects you from the federal government infringing on your rights, but carrying in post offices is illegal regardless of state law because it's the federal government. Is that about right?
-
Clear as mud, eh?
-
What's this mean, Bridgewalker (or Tejon (or ((anyone else) - fistful)))? :laugh:
Without knowing the substance of R. 47.5.4, I'm not entirely sure. However, I'm assuming that R. 47.5.4 outlines some very narrow exceptions, which would be typical, so I'm not too worried about it.
It states that this is an unpublished decision. That means that the court decided that their ruling should apply ONLY to the case they are ruling on. It is not binding law for anyone else. Courts do this all the time when confronted with a controversial issue that, for some reason, they don't want to make new law on. The reasons can be political or simply that the facts of the case are such that a response to those facts would not be an appropriate response to most situations involving the same laws.
Unpublished obviously doesn't mean that no one writes it down, it merely means that it's not included in the official reporter. This does mean that it might be harder to gain access to it. I'm pretty sure, for example, that my student accounts with Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis only give me access to unpublished decisions in Michigan. Unpublished decisions may be pursuasive, and therefore ma be used to help frame an argument, but that's it. An unpublished decision is virtually useless in other states/circuits. I would never cite an unpublished 5th circuit case in a Michigan court. It wouldn't work and depending on the judge, I'd get made fun of.
-
Heller confirmed an individual right but didn't go into detail on what a "sensitive place" was nor what standard of review would be used to determine it.
So, for now, post offices remain "sensitive places" by default. That is what needs to be challenged directly but until teh standard of review is set the deciding court won't have a yardstick to make the determination.
The better fix would be for another Congressional action similar to "Parks Carry" using the same reasoning (which I laid out above).
If the Federal government facility is open to the public in the normal course of business, state carry law applies.