Ban on guns in post offices is unconstitutional, US Judge Rules

[DocBeech]

This will be interesting, will have to change what is taught in LTC classes.

"Jan 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that expanded gun rights."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-guns-post-offices-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules-2024-01-13/#:~:text=Jan%2013%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20A,2022%20that%20expanded%20gun%20rights.

 

[MTA]

I use the po quite a bit and its always a pain in the ass to unholster just to go to the counter

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I use the po quite a bit and its always a pain in the ass to unholster just to go to the counter

Not "supposed" to even have it in the parking lot.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Not "supposed" to even have it in the parking lot.

"Other lawful purposes" was going to be my excuse if it ever became an issue

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[V-Tach]

I wouldn't just carry in the PO on just that........yet........

.A step in the right direction though........

Yes it is silly to leave mine behind while picking up guns shipped to me in the post office..........

 

[Army 1911]

Not "supposed" to even have it in the parking lot.

The PO I use shares a parking lot with other businesses so it is okay in the lot.

 

[Sasquatch]

A judge with common sense! I've asked many a senator and representative to fix that issue via legislation, but none even bother with a form letter response.

 

[Jedi54]

a step in the right direction.

 

[RoadRunner]

Looks like another win for the good guys, at least for now. Check it out here.

 

[MTA]

Not "supposed" to even have it in the parking lot.

yea the location that I go to has a small parking lot but its mainly for the store employee and the trucks getting loaded up for the day. We all just park in the road right in front of it. Its a very wide road so you can park there and no even come close to blocking traffic

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Looks like another win for the good guys, at least for now. Check it out here.

And check it out here...

Ban on guns in post offices is unconstitutional, US Judge Rules

This will be interesting, will have to change what is taught in LTC classes. "Jan 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida on Friday ruled that a U.S. law that bars people from possessing firearms in post offices is unconstitutional, citing a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2022 that...

www.texasguntalk.com

 

[toddnjoyce]

Right now, this ruling pretty much applies to one person in one specific incident.

 

[jmohme]

The PO I use shares a parking lot with other businesses so it is okay in the lot.

I wouldnt count on that.

 

[robertc1024]

Right now, this ruling pretty much applies to one person in one specific incident.

True. I don't carry inside the building, but I do not like having to stash it in the car when I go to the Post Office.

 

[DoubleDuty]

I usually park in the street when visiting the PO

 

[MountainGirl]

Right now, this ruling pretty much applies to one person in one specific incident.

Right. As much as I like it, not sure it will keep. Feds wont let this ruling ooze over into other Federal locations via precedent...

On the other hand - this is a substantial worm out of the very big Bruen can.

From the article:

"...Mizelle said that while post offices have existed since the nation's founding, federal law did not bar guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said.

Mizelle said allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities as a condition of admittance would allow it to "abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence."

If memory serves, GCA and ATF dont date back to the 1700s either.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Right. As much as I like it, not sure it will keep. Feds wont let this ruling ooze over into other Federal locations via precedent....

The thing to keep in mind is the district judge wasn’t hearing a challenge to the law, simply hearing whether the defendant could be charged.

This ruling does nothing to invalidate the law as it stands; it simply conveyed to the prosecution that this particular judge wasn’t going to allow this particular defendant to be charged with this particular offense in this particular case. There is nothing to keep.

 

[MountainGirl]

The thing to keep in mind is the district judge wasn’t hearing a challenge to the law, simply hearing whether the defendant could be charged.

This ruling does nothing to invalidate the law as it stands; it simply conveyed to the prosecution that this particular judge wasn’t going to allow this particular defendant to be charged with this particular offense in this particular case. There is nothing to keep.

Ah.
Hopefully, then, it 'conveyed' a message where it would do some good.
Not much hope however. Those who need to hear it have closed ears; those of us with open ears already know it.
Thanks for the info though, appreciated.

 

[Wiliamr]

The thing to keep in mind is the district judge wasn’t hearing a challenge to the law, simply hearing whether the defendant could be charged.

This ruling does nothing to invalidate the law as it stands; it simply conveyed to the prosecution that this particular judge wasn’t going to allow this particular defendant to be charged with this particular offense in this particular case. There is nothing to keep.

Spot on. Please folks, go go to the PO carrying and think a "District Court Judge " in Florida sets legal precedent. As toddnjoyce points out. In that case that charge was dismissed. The question was not whether or not the law should be vacated on a national basis. The language the judge is quoted using, is just his justification for dismissing the charge.

 

[seeker_two]

The thing to keep in mind is the district judge wasn’t hearing a challenge to the law, simply hearing whether the defendant could be charged.

This ruling does nothing to invalidate the law as it stands; it simply conveyed to the prosecution that this particular judge wasn’t going to allow this particular defendant to be charged with this particular offense in this particular case. There is nothing to keep.

But it does set a precedent....and courts lean heavily on precedent. It puts a foot in the door as an affirmative defense. And it makes any conviction appealable.....

Small steps.....