mauserme Posted December 4, 2010 at 03:00 PM Share Posted December 4, 2010 at 03:00 PM From Mountain States Legal http://www.mountains...legalcaseid=231 Tab and Debbie Bonidy, who live in rural Colorado, where home mail service is not available, must drive 10 miles roundtrip to Avon to collect their mail. On arrival there, however, Mr. and Mrs. Bonidy, both of whom are licensed to carry a handgun and regularly carry a handgun for self-defense, are barred by Postal Service regulation from carrying a firearm or parking their vehicle, if it contains a firearm, on Postal Service property. On July 22, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Bonidy asked the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw the regulation to permit them to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That request was denied on August 3, 2010. In 2007, the Postal Service renewed a longstanding total ban on firearms on Postal Service property, which states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on Postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal property, except for official purposes. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). This regulatory prohibition, which carries a $50 fine or imprisonment for 30 days, or both, is broader than the federal statute, which prohibits private possession of firearms in federal facilities, except those firearms carried "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3). This statutory exception does not apply in federal court facilities, where a total ban is enforced. 18 U.S.C. § 930(e)(1). The Postal Service's total ban on firearms possession impairs the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment because that right cannot be exercised when individuals are traveling to, from, or through Postal property because the Postal Service does not allow people to store a firearm safely in their vehicles. Anyone with a hunting rifle or shotgun in his car, or a handgun in his glove compartment for self-defense, violates the Postal Service ban by driving onto Postal Service property. Thus, the ban denies the right to keep and bear arms everywhere a law-abiding gun owner travels before and after visiting Postal Service property. (emphasis added) From Only Guns and Money http://onlygunsandmo...usps-et-al.html Friday, November 5, 2010Update on Bonidy et al v. USPS et al In the first part of October, attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation sued the United States Postal Service on behalf of Colorado residents Debbie and Tab Bonidy. The National Association for Gun Rights is also a party to the lawsuit as an organizational plaintiff. The suit was brought to challenge the USPS's ban on functional firearms on any Postal Service property with few limited exceptions. An amended lawsuit has now been filed in the case. There is little change in the amended complaint when compared to the original complaint. The first changes are that Postmaster General John Potter and Avon, Colorado Postmaster Steve Ruehle are now only being sued in their official capacities. The earlier complaint had both men being sued in both their official and individual capacities. The remaining changes are, for the most part, stylistic in nature. For example, in paragraph 26 of the amended complaint, relief is asked from "continued enforcement and maintenance of Defendants' unconstitutional laws, customs, practices, and policies." The first post on the lawsuit was picked up by a web news service for USPS managers and employees about two weeks after the lawsuit was filed. The link from PostalNews was put up a few days after two Postal Service employees were murdered at a small post office in western Tennessee. From the comments, you would have thought that Jim Manley was proposing some obscure pagan ritual involving human sacrifice. One anti-gun postmistress went so far as to brag how she even made uniformed law enforcement officers leave their service weapons in their police cruiser rather than to allow a firearm into her post office. As it is, the murder of the Henning, TN USPS employees was committed by a (still) unknown assailant who chose to ignore both the USPS laws and regulations banning firearms and the criminal laws of the State of Tennessee regarding homicide. (emphasis in orginal) Link to Original Complaint 10/4/10 Link to Amended Complaint 10/25/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 4, 2010 at 03:34 PM Share Posted December 4, 2010 at 03:34 PM wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Gwinn Posted December 4, 2010 at 03:40 PM Share Posted December 4, 2010 at 03:40 PM One anti-gun postmistress went so far as to brag how she even made uniformed law enforcement officers leave their service weapons in their police cruiser rather than to allow a firearm into her post office. Hooray for consistency, I guess . . . . makes me wonder whether somebody had this conversation with her: "Look, it just doesn't make sense to treat people like they're criminals just because they're armed for their defense. I realize you're not used to the sight of a citizen carrying a gun in public, but you see police officers doing it all the time, often with less training, and you're OK with that because it's familiar. Is it reasonable to panic over the rest of us just because we're not as familiar?""You know, you're right . . . you've given me something to think about today. Thank you.""You're welcome! I hope that means you're--""Oh, yes! I'm going to send a letter to each of the police departments around here and make sure none of those cops bring their weapons in here, either! What makes them so high and mighty, eh Comrade? Eh?"" . . . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted December 5, 2010 at 08:37 PM Share Posted December 5, 2010 at 08:37 PM This case is a "natural" in what will develop into "sensitive places jurisprudence." If they play their cards right, they might extract a ruling stating that post offices aren't sensitive places and must remove their gun bans OR that the installation of metal detectors and other screening methods would make them a sensitive place warranting a gun ban ... as is currently done in truly sensitive places (eg. sterile portions of airports, buildings or portions of buildings housing federal courts, jails, etc.). A bad ruling will state something along the lines of "post offices are sensitive places because we say they are." "Sensitive place" must truly mean something; it must be definable and recognizable. Some of those issues are playing out in that ongoing Nordyke case involving Alameda county gun shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted December 6, 2010 at 04:42 AM Share Posted December 6, 2010 at 04:42 AM One anti-gun postmistress went so far as to brag how she even made uniformed law enforcement officers leave their service weapons in their police cruiser rather than to allow a firearm into her post office. Hooray for consistency, I guess . . . . makes me wonder whether somebody had this conversation with her: "Look, it just doesn't make sense to treat people like they're criminals just because they're armed for their defense. I realize you're not used to the sight of a citizen carrying a gun in public, but you see police officers doing it all the time, often with less training, and you're OK with that because it's familiar. Is it reasonable to panic over the rest of us just because we're not as familiar?""You know, you're right . . . you've given me something to think about today. Thank you.""You're welcome! I hope that means you're--""Oh, yes! I'm going to send a letter to each of the police departments around here and make sure none of those cops bring their weapons in here, either! What makes them so high and mighty, eh Comrade? Eh?"" . . . "Maybe the anti-gun postmistress will change her mind about LEOs who are armed if some postal employee goes "postal" and shes hiding under her desk and the cops say sorry we won't come because we can't take our guns in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashrak Posted December 7, 2010 at 05:03 AM Share Posted December 7, 2010 at 05:03 AM Interestingly, this affects me directly. I live a couple blocks from my local post office but I do not live on a post road. Therefore, I do not get home delivery mail. I have no choice but to enter the post office to get my mail. As it is open 24 hours for box access (just like everyone else has access to their mail 24 hours a day once it's delivered) but only staffed during bankers' hours, I suppose they would have to hire 24 hour security if they are to disarm people in all Post Offices by deeming them sensitive places...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted November 28, 2011 at 12:39 PM Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 at 12:39 PM http://www.denverpos...ews/ci_19423472 FEDERAL CASE ADVANCES Colorado couple's lawsuit over post office gun ban is allowed to proceed Posted: 11/28/2011 01:00:00 AM MST Updated: 11/28/2011 01:21:23 AM MST By John Ingold The Denver Post A federal judge in Denver has allowed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Postal Service's ban on guns in post offices to go forward. Avon residents Debbie and Tab Bonidy filed the lawsuit last year, saying the ban violates their Second Amendment rights. The Bonidys say they carry handguns for self-defense and both hold concealed-carry permits, and they do not receive mail service at their remote home. They say the ban, which prohibits carrying guns both in post offices and in their parking lots, makes it impossible for them to pick up their mail. James Manley, an attorney at the Mountain States Legal Foundation who represents both the Bonidys and the National Association for Gun Rights in the lawsuit, said the case could have a nationwide impact. "This is a situation that hasn't been challenged before, where you have members of the general public who want to exercise their right to carry," Manley said. In a motion seeking to dismiss the case, the Postal Service noted that the Bonidys could simply park on the street and leave their guns in the car. But it also defended the ban as lawful. The U.S. Supreme Court, while affirming an individual's right to possess firearms, has ruled that laws prohibiting firearms in "sensitive places" are OK, the Postal Service argued. "Large numbers of people from all walks of life gather on postal property every day," the motion stated. ". . . The Postal Service is thus responsible for the protection of its employees and all the members of the public who enter postal property." But earlier this month, U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Matsch rejected the Postal Service's motion, allowing the case to proceed. Attorneys on both sides will now prepare for a more substantive fight on the law, which could be decided by the end of next year. In its defense, the Postal Service has pointed to a case in which the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the conviction of a man who was found to have a handgun in his vehicle in a Postal Service parking lot. That court concluded that Postal Service property was a "sensitive place." But the 5th Circuit's decision is not binding on the Bonidy case. Manley counters that the defendant in the 5th Circuit case was a Postal Service employee whose vehicle was parked in a restricted, employees-only lot. No court in the country, he contends, has taken up whether the Second Amendment right to possess firearms extends to public areas of post offices. "The ruling could have national implications for all post offices," Manley said, "certainly in post offices in areas like the Bonidys' in rural areas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailor Posted June 5, 2013 at 11:42 PM Share Posted June 5, 2013 at 11:42 PM An update on this case, from http://thefiringline...d.php?t=472340: "Suffice it to say that there will be a motions hearing (for the "dueling" MSJ's) on June 18, 2013. Then we will wait." Given discussion elsewhere about the new Illinois concealed carry law (should it actually be implemented as passed) and prohibited locations, this could be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:08 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:08 AM I have been following this because I have the same problem. The USPS does not provide mail delivery in the very small town i live in. So, whenever I go to the POS, I have to unholster and secure my handgun in the car while I walk inside, get my mail and return to my car. The PO does not have a parking lot so I am parked on a village street so I am legal leaving the gun in the car. But seriously, how stupid is this? Everyone that lives in town knows i am armed. It's no secret but still, because everyone does know, I have to disarm before going in and then re-arm when getting back in the car.. I know many of you will have the same problem once the law is finally signed and permits issued. There are many small Illinois towns like mine where there is no delivery in town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:28 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:28 AM I take it the entry is posted as required under title 18? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:57 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:57 AM Isn't this covered by the "Safe Haven/Harbour/Whatever" thingy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:58 AM Author Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:58 AM No, it's a postal regulation not covered by state law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:04 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:04 AM No, it's a postal regulation not covered by state law.Well, that doth sucketh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDaveFactor Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:11 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:11 AM I'm of the opinion that the only gun free zones should be locations where there are armed guards and metal detectors. If there is no guarantee that everyone else is disarmed, I don't feel that the government should have the right to disarm me. But that's the imaginary little world that I would like to live in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:21 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:21 AM Sucketh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester121 Posted June 6, 2013 at 03:04 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 03:04 AM "Large numbers of people from all walks of life gather on postal property every day," the motion stated. ". . . The Postal Service is thus responsible for the protection of its employees and all the members of the public who enter postal property." REALLY? The United States Postal Service explicitly claimed to be responsible for the protection of everyone on their premises? I predict that will come back to bite them in the rear end some day. Are they going to be stationing armed guards in every post office to guarantee my safety against any and all dangers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted June 6, 2013 at 03:35 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 03:35 AM I wonder if anyone has ever been assaulted or attacked while visiting a postal facility. Surely they would have a claim against the USPS then. Frankly, should people file suit if they stub their toe while inside one of their abilities then? After all - they are protecting the public. (Should be copious purple I guess) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted June 6, 2013 at 04:08 AM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 04:08 AM I hope we get 2A rights at the post office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:19 PM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 12:19 PM Sucketh?Was looking at photos of my wife and I at a Ren Faire a few years back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:25 PM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 01:25 PM Are they going to be stationing armed guards in every post office to guarantee my safety against any and all dangers?I don't see how they could afford to do so. The USPO is bankrupt and planning to cut back service. They have no money for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRQ Posted June 6, 2013 at 03:42 PM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 03:42 PM Remembering where the term "going postal" comes from should be reason enough to be armed on USPS property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshipley92 Posted June 6, 2013 at 04:19 PM Share Posted June 6, 2013 at 04:19 PM Remembering where the term "going postal" comes from should be reason enough to be armed on USPS property. Thread winner!!!!! :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcc Posted June 7, 2013 at 06:03 PM Share Posted June 7, 2013 at 06:03 PM I'd like to see a state make a law that says the federal government are guests of the state and must allow citizens who are allowed under state law to carry on their property with firearms. States really need to make the point that under the tenth amendment their jurisdiction and laws, when constitutional, must be followed by the federal government as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorvinion Posted June 7, 2013 at 06:08 PM Share Posted June 7, 2013 at 06:08 PM Assuming this results in a win, would be nice if it extended to buildings at National Parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted June 7, 2013 at 06:18 PM Share Posted June 7, 2013 at 06:18 PM I'd like to see a state make a law that says the federal government are guests of the state and must allow citizens who are allowed under state law to carry on their property with firearms. States really need to make the point that under the tenth amendment their jurisdiction and laws, when constitutional, must be followed by the federal government as well.There you go again with that stupid Constitution. Can't we just get rid of it already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booxone Posted June 8, 2013 at 01:08 AM Share Posted June 8, 2013 at 01:08 AM Hope they win this case, or at least have a vehicle be a safe haven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted June 9, 2013 at 04:15 AM Share Posted June 9, 2013 at 04:15 AM Didn't Phelps mention going into the post office when debating safe harbor ? Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spu69 Posted June 9, 2013 at 05:56 AM Share Posted June 9, 2013 at 05:56 AM That was Forby.Didn't Phelps mention going into the post office when debating safe harbor ? Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted June 9, 2013 at 12:45 PM Share Posted June 9, 2013 at 12:45 PM Oddly, another part of the USPS rules allows anyone that wants to to bring a long gun into the post office for the purpose of mailing it. FFLs can bring in handguns to mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted June 9, 2013 at 05:59 PM Share Posted June 9, 2013 at 05:59 PM Oddly, another part of the USPS rules allows anyone that wants to to bring a long gun into the post office for the purpose of mailing it. FFLs can bring in handguns to mail. If you read the prohibition it would not apply to anyone carrying lawfully on official business or for "any other lawful purpose". Last I checked, self defense was a lawful purpose. What we have here is not a prohibitive law, but a executive and/or administrative decision ignoring the letter of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.