Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
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
:danceban:

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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,193 Posts
Interesting. I have my doubts that it will be upheld on appeal, but I hope it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
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.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot - The Denver Post



:danceban:

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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
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." :smile:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rock and Glock

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
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." :smile:
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...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,418 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
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.

:sheep:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
I guess only Postal workers are allowed to go postal? :embarassed:
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. :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,217 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
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." :smile:
Spend a night at the Holiday Inn Express and you're go to go after that!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
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.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Wow, I remember not too long ago there was a thread here about the Post Office and carrying (illegal as it is federal property) as well as keeping it in the glovebox (still illegal technically). So is this saying that the laws for restricting carry there are unconstitutional? I think that's a great ruling if so, just rather surprised (in a good way). Doesn't mean I'm going to go out and try it tomorrow but I am interested to see how this pans out.

Sadly I'm so used to our gun rights being attacked that I don't know how to react at first when they're being defended and expanded instead.

EDIT: Seems that the ruling is inside the Post Office is still not allowed. However, keeping your firearm in your car is allowed. While I still find it rather silly, it's tolerable for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,127 Posts
Seems to me that to rule handgun restriction is un-constitutional anywhere is to rule that it's un-constitutional everywhere. I really hate this concept of allowing the law/courts/etc. to cherry pick what they feel is legal/illegal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
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...
Not at all. He's saying that outside of the district where this decision was handed down, it isn't binding precedent, so you can't count on it unless your post office is within that district.

It can certainly be presented to support an argument in a different district, but that court could choose to ignore it and rule differently.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,740 Posts
I hate going to the post office, where for the privilege of spending my money, I can get to wait 30 minutes in line to buy stamps and then be accosted by the rude clerk behind the counter. I either buy stamps at the grocery store or online and I can send packages from work at a discounted rate. At least the Judge is introducing a ray of hope into the gloomy darkness of pointless gun regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigPony
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top