BREAKING: Court Decision – USPS CANNOT Ban Guns in Their Parking Lots

[Frank Castle]

Federal Court has ruled that the United States Post Office violated a man’s rights when they banned firearms in their parking lot.

This might be good ammunition to get the state legislature to amend that law that prevents guns in cars at public schools!




http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaking-court-decision-usps-cannot-ban-guns-in-their-parking-lots/

[zahc]

That's good. I always thought it was pretty backward that carry is illegal in on federal property. Even if the 2nd is NOT incorporated, you would expect to be able to carry on federal property, if nowhere else.

[AZRedhawk44]

Yawn.

WTF good is a gun in the parking lot?  It needs to be on my hip.

[Matthew Carberry]

In light of Heller Congress needs to define "sensitive places" as anywhere the public cannot enter in the normal course of business, or, anyplace the public can enter in the normal course of business that is secured by physical screening measures like magnetometers and/or physical searches and/or x-ray scanners -and- armed guards.

If the .gov wants to claim a place is sensitive make them put their our money where their mouth is and protect it.

Basically only "employee's only" areas of most Federal properties should be barred for carry (because they are barred for even unarmed entry).

[Matthew Carberry]

Yawn.

WTF good is a gun in the parking lot?  It needs to be on my hip.

In the case at hand the guy lived out of town and only went in to get his mail. Barring parking lot carry/storage essentially disarmed him the whole trip. Think Tallpine's situation.

[AZRedhawk44]

    There are good reasons for barring weapons within the postal building itself, Matsch said. “An individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purpose.”

    But there are no similar reasons to forbid Bonidy from securing his gun in a vehicle in the parking lot before entering the building, Matsch said…

    …”The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy’s liberty can be accommodated by modifying the regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to “have ready access to essential postal services” provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense.”

1. Bonidy has no mechanism to exercise his right to self defense while inside the damn building.
2. "Passions, twaddle, FUD, etc" make no damn sense.  Anyone subject to "passions, twaddle, FUD, etc" can just as well break into Bonidy's car while it is in the parking lot and take his gun while it is unattended, then take it into the post office to do terrible horrible naughty things with it.  At least on Bonidy's hip where it belongs, it requires physical confrontation with Bonidy to take control of the weapon.

[Matthew Carberry]

1. Bonidy has no mechanism to exercise his right to self defense while inside the damn building.
2. "Passions, twaddle, FUD, etc" make no damn sense.  Anyone subject to "passions, twaddle, FUD, etc" can just as well break into Bonidy's car while it is in the parking lot and take his gun while it is unattended, then take it into the post office to do terrible horrible naughty things with it.  At least on Bonidy's hip where it belongs, it requires physical confrontation with Bonidy to take control of the weapon.

I agree, but parking lot carry is a good incremental win. Which is how we win.

[HankB]

I agree, but parking lot carry is a good incremental win. Which is how we win.

Think of this as the camel's nose under the tent . . . but this time, it's our camel for a change. 

[Tallpine]

Funny, I've seen rifles in pickup window racks at the local PO.

Not all of those pickups were mine, either.

[brimic]

Nobody's said it yet, so I might as well say it: "concealed means concealed."

[roo_ster]

A while back I went in to a local PO to mail off the slide of my Kel-Tec P40 to be nickel plated.  PO worker knew by the addy it was a gun/gun parts and slyly asked if I was carrying a Glock.  Smelled very much like he was fishing.  I responded, "No, I never carry a Glock(1)."

I truly despise these procedural BS violations, the ridiculously severe penalties(2), and especially those who seek to impose them.  I have come around to the view that gov't agents ought to abide by the exact same laws and regs that run of the mill solid citizens must.  I am flat tired of all these special privileges for the King's Men and restrictions on the King's Subjects.



(1) 100% true, since I do not own a glock.

(2) Compare them to actual crimes that damage actual people.  IMHO, a purse snatching is orders of magnitude more evil, morally wrong, and such.  Packing into a PO or some such damages no one.

[Devonai]

I always thought that 18 USC 930 provided an exemption for people lawfully carrying.  Subsection D paragraph 3:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Wouldn't concealed carry (for personal protection) fall under "other lawful purposes?"

[Tallpine]

I always thought that 18 USC 930 provided an exemption for people lawfully carrying.  Subsection D paragraph 3:

Wouldn't concealed carry (for personal protection) fall under "other lawful purposes?"

Should include open carry too but I'm not going to try it out  

There are some POs in Montana that are NOT inside city limits 

[Matthew Carberry]

I always thought that 18 USC 930 provided an exemption for people lawfully carrying.  Subsection D paragraph 3:

Wouldn't concealed carry (for personal protection) fall under "other lawful purposes?"

Not until Congress gets off their ass and defines that term in statute.  I think it has been challenged once, can't remember if it was post-Heller or if the gov't gamed it to drop the charges and avoid a ruling.

[HankB]

I always thought that 18 USC 930 provided an exemption for people lawfully carrying.  Subsection D paragraph 3:

Quote
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Wouldn't concealed carry (for personal protection) fall under "other lawful purposes?"

IANAL, but I personally think this is the logical interpretation. However, keeping in mind SCOTUS decisions like Wickard vs. Filburn, logic doesn’t always have a place in the law OR in the interpretation of what seems to be plain language. This very issue has been discussed on Texas concealed carry forums, and AFAIK, no Texas CHL holder has been prosecuted, so there’s no established case law. Can we have a volunteer to be a test case?

[Tallpine]

Not until Congress gets off their ass and defines that term in statute.  I think it has been challenged once, can't remember if it was post-Heller or if the gov't gamed it to drop the charges and avoid a ruling.

So the following the law loophole isn't necessarily lawful  

[roo_ster]

“The law is not a "light" for you or any man to see by; the law is not an instrument of any kind. ...The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely.”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

Not any more , Bobby-Boy.  Nowadays, it is the tool of the Other Guy, the one who lays snares at your feet.

[Matthew Carberry]

So the following the law loophole isn't necessarily lawful  

The Post Office has delegated authority to write (and interpret) their own regulations.  

If they are overstepping their authority the only way to "correct" them is via Congressional action to limit that delegated power to define and interpret or for the Court to tell them their interpretation is unCon.

See also National Park carry, etc.  

Now would be the time for the pro-gun folks in both houses of Congress to float a "Federal lands" carry bill that will define "sensitive places" in statute and remove the ability of the various lower Courts to interpret the Heller decision's remark that "not all restrictions on carry in 'sensitive places' are presumptively unCon" to mean "all restrictions are Constitutional if the place is claimed to be sensitive."

Right now the Federal agencies collective position is effectively that any building with a Federal employee in it is sensitive regardless of security or public access.  Which is ludicrous and could be interpreted as designating Federal employees as a separate class.