Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot

This is a discussion on Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot - The Denver Post Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs up Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot

    Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot - The Denver Post

    Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot

    By Tom McGhee
    The Denver Post

    A federal judge has ruled that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates the Second Amendment in a case brought by an Avon man and a national gun rights group.


    But Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said the Postal Service has a right to bar Tab Bonidy, who filed the lawsuit, from carrying his gun into the Post Office building itself.

    SNIP



    WARNING -- this is a District Court case. As I understand it (as a layman), it is not binding outside that District. So don't run out and . . . .

    Any bets on how this will play out in on appeal?
    Last edited by DaveH; July 10th, 2013 at 09:54 PM. Reason: Added warning
    Badey, Tzadik and BenGoodLuck like this.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,892
    Interesting. I have my doubts that it will be upheld on appeal, but I hope it is.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    983
    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."
    Yeah, like that happens every day, every where. How excited or passionate do people get at the Post Office?

    And, that doesn't speak to entering a USPS after hours, when only the PO box lobby is accessible.

    The judge made a decision in the right direction, but he throws like a girl.

    (no offense ladies, it's just a figure of speech.)
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,403
    I guess only Postal workers are allowed to go postal?

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array USM1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot - The Denver Post





    WARNING -- this is a District Court case. As I understand it (as a layman), it is not binding outside that District. So don't run out and . . . .

    Any bets on how this will play out in on appeal?


    It's called case law now and can be used in any district. In otherwords, say a case was heard in another court in another city in your state. Whatever the decision is made in that trial can be used in subsequent trials in another court of that state as case law.
    64zebra and oldman45 like this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by USM1976 View Post
    It's called case law now and can be used in any district. In otherwords, say a case was heard in another court in another city in your state. Whatever the decision is made in that trial can be used in subsequent trials in another court of that state as case law.
    Yes, but let's not confuse precedent that might have bearing and binding as in appellate decisions.

    BTW see my signature. "I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice."
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array USM1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    876
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Yes, but let's not confuse precedent that might have bearing and binding as in appellate decisions.

    BTW see my signature. "I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice."
    So, what you're saying is that decision doesn't have an effect on the next guy who carries a handgun onto the parking lot of a post office, only the person who filed the suit in THIS case ?

    Seems rather wasteful then...

  9. #8
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,226
    RMGO, IIRC, helped on this case.

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array MJB_17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1,419
    Interesting, and as USM1976 said, it is case law now which matters a lot. Judges very frequently base their rulings on precedents (past rulings in similar cases), when you get conflicting rulings in the same level judiciary that is often when it goes up the appellate chain to circuit and potentially even SCOTUS. Basically, they have to sort out the conflict once and for all.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,466
    How else is he supposed to protect himself from postal postal workers?
    USM1976 likes this.

  12. #11
    Member Array perfection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    294
    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."
    This would totally make sense if a really good looking guy or gal walked into the Post Office open carrying. They might really excite some passions and this could totally 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."
    Also glad that this judge has made the final ruling on open carry being far too dangerous because a bad guy might grab your gun. I'll let all the people at opencarry.org know and I'm sure they will see the light.


  13. #12
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    I guess only Postal workers are allowed to go postal?
    The ridiculous thing of it all is, with respect to post offices, that such folks aren't any more or less likely to blow sideways than at any other workplace.

    At some point, all these petty infringements will need to be taken down. Plenty of states don't criminalize citizens for carrying on state properties, through state buildings, to the state capitol, etc. And blood hasn't run in the streets. Can't imagine what lofty, ivory tower nature exists in federal government weenies justifying criminalization of citizens for carrying on federal properties, buildings. Were we all to cease being criminalized for doing so, perhaps the idiot hirelings would begin to get the picture that continued forcible malfeasance upon the People might well result in someone going off his meds and "just saying 'no'."

    Ah, infringements. Glorious little buggers, all of 'em.
    CIBMike likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by MJB_17 View Post
    Interesting, and as USM1976 said, it is case law now which matters a lot. Judges very frequently base their rulings on precedents (past rulings in similar cases), when you get conflicting rulings in the same level judiciary that is often when it goes up the appellate chain to circuit and potentially even SCOTUS. Basically, they have to sort out the conflict once and for all.
    It is something but not necessarily a lot. Other judges may use it as precedent as long as they don't think this judge is a twit. If the feds want to minimize it's impact they can simply not appeal. The high they push it up the system the bigger a problem it can be for them.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array dben002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kernersville NC
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Yes, but let's not confuse precedent that might have bearing and binding as in appellate decisions.

    BTW see my signature. "I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice."
    Spend a night at the Holiday Inn Express and you're go to go after that!!
    There are two types of people who carry concealed weapons...Responsible ones and Irresponsible ones...which are you...

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array dben002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kernersville NC
    Posts
    1,388
    Just one more reason of many not to go to post offices........I can buy stamps lots of places...if I need to ship something it's Fed-Ex, so they really have nothing I want.....
    There are two types of people who carry concealed weapons...Responsible ones and Irresponsible ones...which are you...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

federal law on firearms in parking lots

,

firearm postal lobby

,

guns in federal parking lots

,

judge richard matsch ruling on usps parking lots

,

possession of a firearm post office parking lot

,

post office carrying texas law shield

,

post office violated 2nd amendment

,

post office violated mans rights by banning gun

,

post office violated second amendmant

,

texas law shield post office carrying

,

usps cannot ban guns in their parking lots michigan

,

usps, 2nd amendment, parking lots

Click on a term to search for related topics.