US v Ayala - Firearms in post offices

[Euler]

Emmanuel Ayala is/was a postal employee who took a firearm to work. He was charged with possession of the firearm in a prohibited space and resisting arrest.

On January 12, the judge dismissed the possession charge. The charge of resisting arrest is still live. (docket)

Order said:

The United States indicted Emmanuel Ayala, a postal worker, for possessing a firearm in a Federal facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a). Ayala argues that statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because the historical record does not support a law banning firearms in post offices. ... Relying on dicta from earlier cases, the United States responds that the Second Amendment allows it to punish the bearing of arms inside any government building. But the Supreme Court has been clear: the government must point to historical principles that would permit it to prohibit firearms possession in post offices. ... The United States fails to meet that burden. Thus, I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala's Second Amendment right to bear arms.
...

[SiliconSorcerer]

Only a fool resists arrest.

[Smallbore]

On 1/15/2024 at 7:55 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Only a fool resists arrest.

But did he?

[modeler1945]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:03 AM, Smallbore said:

But did he?

Resisting arrest is an easy charge to get. All he had to do was "tense up" and the cops can slap him with resisting. Tell me you wouldn't tense up if the cops bent your arm/wrist in an unnatural/painful way. There really aught to be a distinction between actively "resisting" or fighting back against being arrested and simply having a natural reaction to painful stimulus. 

[Bubbacs]

Arrested for carrying a firearm.  After or while attempting to arrest for CARRYING a firearm, he was then slapped with resisting.  BUT, if the original charge of carrying a firearm in dismissed due to right to bear arms, then it should follow that he did NOT resist that which was an illegal arrest!  He wasn't doing anything the constitution allowed so therefore he would not have needed to be arrested?  No?  Yes?

[gunuser17]

I would say no from what you stated.  The officer was enforcing a law that was on the books so he had a right to arrest (assuming there was probable cause).  More importantly, you have no right to resist the arrest even if you believe that the arrest is unlawful or if the arrest is later found unlawful.  The appropriate response is to be arrested peaceably and then sue for damages for the false arrest.  Say you get pulled over for speeding at a rate that amounts to reckless driving and an arrest - you then resist arrest.  Some time later, the police determine that the radar gun was miscalibrated and you were not actually speeding and dismiss the speeding/reckless charge - I think that the resisting charge still stands in that case.  Probably not the answer that most want to hear but I believe that is the legal answer.  Also maybe a charge that the prosecutor decides to not go forward many times.

Edited January 15, 2024 at 11:03 PM by gunuser17

[davel501]

On 1/15/2024 at 5:02 PM, gunuser17 said:

I would say no from what you stated.  The officer was enforcing a law that was on the books so he had a right to arrest (assuming there was probable cause).  More importantly, you have no right to resist the arrest even if you believe that the arrest is unlawful or if the arrest is later found unlawful.  The appropriate response is to be arrested peaceably and then sue for damages for the false arrest.  Say you get pulled over for speeding at a rate that amounts to reckless driving and an arrest - you then resist arrest.  Some time later, the police determine that the radar gun was miscalibrated and you were not actually speeding and dismiss the speeding/reckless charge - I think that the resisting charge still stands in that case.  Probably not the answer that most want to hear but I believe that is the legal answer.  Also maybe a charge that the prosecutor decides to not go forward many times.

 

Yep. Court is for fighting the charges. 

 

Will be interesting to see if there is any body cam footage to support the resisting charge. 

 

Officers can claim resisting if you stop walking although this one didn't get away with it. I bet that if he was the arresting officer there would have been a covering resistaning charge. 

 

https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2024/01/12/bodycam-video-captures-waukegan-police-officer-throwing-handcuffed-man-to-ground-injuring-him/

[Euler]

I believe the resisting arrest charge arose from the fact that he tried to escape the arrest. (I.e., they had to chase him.)

I expect an appeal before the trial from the government on the unconstitutionality issue. Florida is in the 11th Circuit for federal appeals. If the government loses the appeal, that practically guarantees that the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on it.

[ealcala31]

On 1/15/2024 at 5:02 PM, gunuser17 said:

I would say no from what you stated.  The officer was enforcing a law that was on the books so he had a right to arrest (assuming there was probable cause).  More importantly, you have no right to resist the arrest even if you believe that the arrest is unlawful or if the arrest is later found unlawful.  The appropriate response is to be arrested peaceably and then sue for damages for the false arrest.  Say you get pulled over for speeding at a rate that amounts to reckless driving and an arrest - you then resist arrest.  Some time later, the police determine that the radar gun was miscalibrated and you were not actually speeding and dismiss the speeding/reckless charge - I think that the resisting charge still stands in that case.  Probably not the answer that most want to hear but I believe that is the legal answer.  Also maybe a charge that the prosecutor decides to not go forward many times.

I watched an Audit the Audit the other day and that was the explanation they gave on why the resisting arrest charge was still valid.

[mab22]

On 1/15/2024 at 11:22 PM, ealcala31 said:

I watched an Audit the Audit the other day and that was the explanation they gave on why the resisting arrest charge was still valid.

Hopefully you turned on the cameras and mic’s and hit record when they arrived.

Those mamas lemon pound cake songs on YouTube aren’t gonna make themselves! 😉

[Euler]

USPS said:→

Employee safety is a top priority for the Postal Service, which is why the organization wants to ensure everyone is aware of its longstanding policy on firearms on postal property.

A recent Florida district court decision is being misreported or may be misinterpreted as holding that the Postal Service's ban on carrying firearms -- either openly or concealed, or storing them on USPS property -- is unconstitutional.

In fact, the case dealt with a different federal statute and does not involve the Postal Service's regulation. Therefore, it does not change the organization's policy.

Employees are reminded that carrying or storing firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives -- either openly or concealed -- on USPS property is prohibited and can result in discipline up to and including removal from the Postal Service, as well as potential prosecution.

This prohibition includes storing firearms in vehicles that are parked on postal property.

[Euler]

On January 19, the US DOJ filed notice to appeal the dismissal of the possession charge by February 12.

[Euler]

On February 12, the US DOJ filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. (I don't have a docket number yet.)

[Euler]

On February 14, the 11th Circuit docketed the case as 24-10462

[Euler]

On April 8, the court ordered the US to file its appeal brief by May 14.

[Euler]

On May 7, the US asked for an extension to file its brief.

On May 14, the court granted an extension to June 28.

[Euler]

On June 28, the government filed its brief.

US brief said:

... This case presents an important issue of Second Amendment law, and the district court's order of dismissal, if not corrected, will have grave implications for longstanding firearm restrictions in post offices and other government buildings.
...
... The district court dismissed a count charging defendant Ayala with having illegally possessed a firearm at his Postal Service workplace, ruling that the Second Amendment bars the government from prohibiting firearms in post offices because firearms were not prohibited in post offices at the time of the Founding. The lack of post-office-specific regulations is no surprise, however, because dedicated postal buildings did not exist at that time. In any event, the Supreme Court has assured us three times that the government may restrict firearms in government buildings, without any evident exception. And in Rahimi, the Court emphatically reminded us that the law at issue need only be "consistent with" our historical principles and "relevantly similar" to our Founding-era laws. ...
...
In striking down laws that had broadly prohibited firearms at home or in public, the Supreme Court has cautioned that other laws prohibiting the possession of firearms in schools or government buildings are settled and beyond doubt (Heller and McDonald). Bruen affirmed and reiterated Heller and McDonald, while explaining that firearm prohibitions in schools and government buildings are consistent with our nation's tradition and the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.
...
Heller, McDonald, and Bruen expressly vindicate firearm restrictions in government buildings, which include post offices.
...
Even if the Supreme Court's assurances in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen are construed as dicta, the analogies that the Court drew demonstrate a historical understanding of the government's authority to restrict firearms in other government buildings.
...
Even if the government could not restrict firearms in post offices as a general matter, Ayala's as-applied constitutional challenge would still fail, because the government may prohibit its own employees from bringing guns to work.
...

Although it's not at issue here, I believe that the Post Office prohibits firearms in non-Post Office buildings with force of law if there happens to be a Post Office in them, which would specifically make that prohibition unconstitutional by the example that the government itself cites.

Also, the ability of an employer to prohibit employees from bringing firearms to work doesn't turn a workplace policy violation into a crime just because the policy is about firearms. The law could still be unconstitutional. Ayala could still be fired without being charged with a crime. This question arises from a criminal case, not an employment law case.

The government wasted no time incorporating Rahimi squishiness into its argument. The court ordered the government to produce this brief on April 8 and extended the deadline in May. Rahimi was a week ago.

Edited June 30, 2024 at 08:17 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On July 16, Ayala asked for an extension to file the response brief. The court extended the due date to September 3.

[Euler]

On August 23, Ayala asked for another extension to file the response brief.

On August 27, the court extended the due date to September 17.

[Euler]

On September 17, Ayala met the deadline.

[Euler]

On October 1, the government asked for an extension to file its reply brief.

On October 7, the court granted the extension until December 9.

On December 9, the government met its deadline.

[Euler]

On May 5, the 11th Circuit Court tentatively scheduled oral arguments for the week of September 8.

[Euler]

On June 26, the circuit court scheduled oral arguments for September 12.

[Euler]

On August 15, the US filed its intent to withdraw (voluntarily dismiss) the appeal of the dismissal of the firearm possession charge. In other words, the US will stop seeking to have the firearm possession charge reinstated.

I have 2 comments:

1. The voluntary dismissal does not mean it's okay for everyone to carry in post offices. It only means that the government isn't going to prosecute this one guy for it.
2. Ayala still faces the resisting arrest charge.

[John Q Public]

So again, when they think they will lose, the just kick the can down the road, and the next guy gets hosed and on and on. 

Edited August 19, 2025 at 06:26 PM by John Q Public

[Euler]

I'm not sure there's any can-kicking going on here.

[Euler]

On August 22 in appellate court, the US followed through on its previously filed intent and filed for the dismissal of the appeal. The court granted it.

[Euler]

On October 31 in district court, the judge set a status hearing for November 3.

[Euler]

On November 3 in district court, the judge continued (i.e., postponed) a trial on the remaining charges to January 2026, scheduled another status hearing for December 9, and ordered parties to file a written report on the status of Ayala's motion to suppress evidence seized, including his firearm and video surveillance of the inside of his work vehicle, no later than November 14.

Edited November 8, 2025 at 02:56 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On November 14, both sides requested more time to provide the ordered status report.