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

[oldag]

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 could encourage someone like GOA to file suit.

 

[leVieux]

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

This arbitrary move by a Postmaster General has always seemed very anti-constitutional to me.

 

[Wiliamr]

Two points

This arbitrary move by a Postmaster General has always seemed very anti-constitutional to me.

You are wrong about this being an "arbitrary move by a Postmaster General", it is Federal Law: Title 39 CFR Section 232.1.

 

[Wiliamr]

To give you all a bit of a background on this issue.

Back in June of 2015, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled by 2-1 vote, a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots. (Bonidy et al VS USPS USCCA No. 13 - 1374) re: USPS Administrative Support Manual Section 276.22.

Circuit Judge David Ebel said the right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings such as post offices, and that while it was a "closer question" he would not second-guess the Postal Service's extending the ban to its parking lots.

 

[seeker_two]

Passed in 1973. Unlikely to pass the Bruen Test.....

 

[GaryS]

If the 11th Circuit upholds the FL ruling, it could set up a circuit split and make the issue ripe for cert. by SCOTUS.

At that point the question becomes if a Post Office is a "sensitive place" per Bruen.

Courts, LE facilities, schools, and even hospitals are considered "sensitive places" depending on the state.

There is a reasonable chance SCOTUS would consider postal facilities to be the same.

Not that I like it, because as others have noted it's a PITA to have to stash a gun to go into one.

To give you all a bit of a background on this issue.

Back in June of 2015, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled by 2-1 vote, a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots. (Bonidy et al VS USPS USCCA No. 13 - 1374) re: USPS Administrative Support Manual Section 276.22.

Circuit Judge David Ebel said the right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings such as post offices, and that while it was a "closer question" he would not second-guess the Postal Service's extending the ban to its parking lots.

 

[DoubleDuty]

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.

Yep all gun control violates the 2nd Amendment and citizens allowed it to happen. All of it needs to be removed because it is unacceptable since we are American citizens and support the Constitution which tells the government what they are allowed to do not the other way around.

 

[DoubleDuty]

If the SCOTUS really wanted to settle it once and for all they would have ruled that all gun control violates the 2nd Amendment but they really have let us down.

 

[MountainGirl]

Yep all gun control violates the 2nd Amendment and citizens allowed it to happen. All of it needs to be removed because it is unacceptable since we are American citizens and support the Constitution which tells the government what they are allowed to do not the other way around.

Agree, very much. AND that's why it bows my neck when people proclaim "The 2nd Amendment gives us the Right to Bear Arms!!" It doesn't, and continuing to shout that it does only reinforces wrong thinking.

The Right to Bear Arms is a natural, God given Right. All 2A does is tell the govt that it shall not be infringed...which they ignore completely. IF 2A was ever nuked, our Right to Bear Arms doesn't end. All that would be lost is a Constitutional legal argument against the anti-gun govt...which is important to have; or it would be if they followed the Law, which they dont.

/rant.

 

[leVieux]

Two points

You are wrong about this being an "arbitrary move by a Postmaster General", it is Federal Law: Title 39 CFR Section 232.1.

<:

It began as a directive from a bureaucrat.

And, it is unconstitutional.

’’SHALL not be infringed‘’ ?

<?

 

[Wiliamr]

<:

It began as a directive from a bureaucrat.

And, it is unconstitutional.

’’SHALL not be infringed‘’ ?

<?

You are wrong about it beginning as directive of a Bureaucrat. It was a movement for all federal offices back in 1972 that define "Conduct on.." in this case it is conduct on Postal or leased Property. It is very long list of allowed and prohibited behaviors. Much to long to post here, but here is what the law states.ttps://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-39/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-232/section-232.1

 

[leVieux]

You are wrong about it beginning as directive of a Bureaucrat. It was a movement for all federal offices back in 1972 that define "Conduct on.." in this case it is conduct on Postal or leased Property. It is very long list of allowed and prohibited behaviors. Much to long to post here, but here is what the law states.ttps://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-39/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-232/section-232.1

<>

I’m 80, remember way back; I understand about the law, and am not disputing it.

I cannot find a reference of BEFORE that ‘’law”; but I recall that there was a fiat “order’ preventing carry before that law was passed. It was controversial, but most states already had anti CC laws before any of that.

Still, all of it looks unconstitutional to me.

leVieux

<>

 

[Wiliamr]

<>

I’m 80, remember way back; I understand about the law, and am not disputing it.

I cannot find a reference of BEFORE that ‘’law”; but I recall that there was a fiat “order’ preventing carry before that law was passed. It was controversial, but most states already had anti CC laws before any of that.

Still, all of it looks unconstitutional to me.

leVieux

<>

I am nearly 80 myself. I have a long history with dealing with "gun control laws". What really made a huge impact with the future of Title 39 was the the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA repealed and replaced the FFA of 1938. 1968's GCA also updated Title II of the NFA (June 26, 1934) to fix constitutional issues, adding language about “destructive devices” (such as bombs, mines and grenades) and expanded the definition of “machine gun.”

In 1939, the USSC heard the case of US v Miller ruling that Congress could regulate the interstate sales of short barrelled shotgun. (Interesting to note, that neither Miller appeared to present their case) USSC wrote "there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and thus “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”) this is the legal and constitutional loophole used for years to justify more "gun control".

The logic used being that the 2nd Amendment does not specify the "arms" used by the "militia" and hence where not specifically prohibited, it can be regulated. In my opinion (which will not even get you a used Starbucks cup in a competent court of law) that logic is flawed in several ways. Mainly, the 2nd Amendment is not a gift to the people, it is a restriction on Government. Hence the government can not define what is "allowed" to the people. The 2nd Amendment dictates what the people allow the government.

 

[majormadmax]

To give you all a bit of a background on this issue.

Back in June of 2015, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled by 2-1 vote, a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots. (Bonidy et al VS USPS USCCA No. 13 - 1374) re: USPS Administrative Support Manual Section 276.22.

Circuit Judge David Ebel said the right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings such as post offices, and that while it was a "closer question" he would not second-guess the Postal Service's extending the ban to its parking lots.

And, in the greater extent, 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities...

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(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.

(e)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(2)Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6215(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXII, § 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 603(t), (u), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(b), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 381; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 203, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2537.)

The biggest difference being 18 §930 applies only to facilities as defined in para (g)(1), whereas 39 CFR Section 232.1, which states:

"Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, no person while on Postal Service property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal Service"

...pertains to "all real property," but does not apply to...

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

 

[Renegade]

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

And before one specific judge.

I would doubt the US Attorney will appeal it. Take the L on this one charge/case and not risk anything bigger. Could lead to a vacate of USC930, some building s would survive, but others like National Parks Visitor Centers would not.

 

[Wiliamr]

And, in the greater extent, 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities...

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(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.

(e)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(2)Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6215(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXII, § 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 603(t), (u), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(b), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 381; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 203, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2537.)

The biggest difference being 18 §930 applies only to facilities as defined in para (g)(1), whereas 39 CFR Section 232.1, which states:

"Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, no person while on Postal Service property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal Service"

...pertains to "all real property," but does not apply to...

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

They build a framework that the antigun side try to use to establish the antigun "law" as settled historical record. The twisted legalese is frightening in how they attempt to apply it.

 

[Lonesome Dove]

Due to the mindsets of the liberal race the Constitutional 2nd amendment will never be as it is worded.

We can bitch, moan, groan and complain from here to high water and it won't ever matter as long as their are liberals in congress and the liberals run the country.

Being an even playing field it's impossible.

 

[cycleguy2300]

And, in the greater extent, 18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities...

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.

(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.

(e)

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(2)Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

(g) As used in this section:

(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

(Added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6215(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4361; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title XXII, § 2205(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4857; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60014, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1973; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 603(t), (u), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 811(b), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 381; Pub. L. 110–177, title II, § 203, Jan. 7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2537.)

The biggest difference being 18 §930 applies only to facilities as defined in para (g)(1), whereas 39 CFR Section 232.1, which states:

"Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, no person while on Postal Service property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal Service"

...pertains to "all real property," but does not apply to...

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.

(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;

^^ Me as Police

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

^^ Is self defense not a lawful purpose?

I f-ing hate when the govt clearly infringes on our rights.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

(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;

^^ Me as Police

"lawful performance of official duties"

So you are SOL off the clock. Total BS.

 

[Wiliamr]

(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;

^^ Me as Police

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

^^ Is self defense not a lawful purpose?

I f-ing hate when the govt clearly infringes on our rights.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

BUT only if you are on the clock. The language of these laws is very slippery.