You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bonidy vs US Postal Service
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot
The Denver Post reports a favorable ruling in Bonidy v USPS.
The Denver Post reports a favorable ruling in Bonidy v USPS.
Yeah, of a sort.
His right to self-defense which, apparently, doesn't exist inside a USPS facility.""The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy's liberty can be accommodated by modifying the regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to "have ready access to essential postal services" provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense."
I'm seeing big potential from this ruling. Remember Denver is in this District and it has an open carry ban, yet the judge made clear open carry outside the home is protected.
Now a plaintiff needs to go after Denver again, preferably a non-CO resident, and one that lives in a non-reciprocal state, just in case they tell the person to just get a CCW and everything will be OK.
Now a plaintiff needs to go after Denver again, preferably a non-CO resident, and one that lives in a non-reciprocal state, just in case they tell the person to just get a CCW and everything will be OK.
motorhead0922
New member
One more step in the right direction.
I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
motorhead0922 said:I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
As long as the parking lots are uncontrolled. That seems to be the thrust of the opinion.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Parking lots of federal facilities other than postal facilities are not off-limits. The general law banning firearms in federal facilities defines "facility" as a building ... which clearly does not include a parking lot.motorhead0922 said:I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
The postal service has its own regulation, and that refers to "property" rather than "facility."
maestro pistolero
New member
Good news, in part. Certainly a step in the right direction.
I don't know how it is in other cities, but here in Vegas, there are a number of small post offices located in small, strip mall units. Often, there is not even signage visible from the street. One could easily be in a shared parking lot and not even be aware they were in a post office parking lot. Perilous, if the law were strictly enforced.
Here's another link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/1...from-parking-lot-judge-rules/?test=latestnews
I don't know how it is in other cities, but here in Vegas, there are a number of small post offices located in small, strip mall units. Often, there is not even signage visible from the street. One could easily be in a shared parking lot and not even be aware they were in a post office parking lot. Perilous, if the law were strictly enforced.
Here's another link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/1...from-parking-lot-judge-rules/?test=latestnews
dakota.potts
New member
Here is something else I read from this case.
When and how those restraints may be applied has been and will be the subject of extensive litigation. In Peterson, 707 F.3d at 1201, the Tenth Circuit held that the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection does not include a right to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. That ruling is binding on this Court and defeats the Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Bonidy should be free to carry his concealed handgun on his person in the Avon Post Office and parking lot. But the Peterson panel did not address whether open carry of firearms outside the home is similarly unprotected; indeed, it explicitly declined to do so. See id. at 1208-09.
Those who believe in the primacy of collective security read Heller narrowly within the factual context in which the case arose. See discussion as to Part III.B in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011); Piszczatoski v. Filko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D. N.J. 2012). Judge Posner persuasively discredited that reading by his textual analysis in the opinion deciding Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Aside from the textual meaning of “bear arms,” he recognized the common-sense view that armed self-defense is important outside the home and that hunting takes place outside the home.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety.
...
In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment.
When and how those restraints may be applied has been and will be the subject of extensive litigation. In Peterson, 707 F.3d at 1201, the Tenth Circuit held that the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection does not include a right to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. That ruling is binding on this Court and defeats the Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Bonidy should be free to carry his concealed handgun on his person in the Avon Post Office and parking lot. But the Peterson panel did not address whether open carry of firearms outside the home is similarly unprotected; indeed, it explicitly declined to do so. See id. at 1208-09.
Those who believe in the primacy of collective security read Heller narrowly within the factual context in which the case arose. See discussion as to Part III.B in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011); Piszczatoski v. Filko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D. N.J. 2012). Judge Posner persuasively discredited that reading by his textual analysis in the opinion deciding Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Aside from the textual meaning of “bear arms,” he recognized the common-sense view that armed self-defense is important outside the home and that hunting takes place outside the home.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety.
...
In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment.
maestro pistolero
New member
I often imagined that open carry could end up being the standard, with the government getting a pass on restricting OC if they allow concealed carry.
dakota.potts
New member
That's exactly what we're trying to do here in Florida, due to particular wording in our state constitution. This helps a lot.
Although the logic of not allowing OC in a post office is way off, this is a good ruling for us. Post office carry can wait a little longer. We need a carry outside the home case. This ruling rejects the Masciandaro and Piza(NJ) rulings (only in the home) and supports the Moore ruling. More conflict in the lower courts is a good thing.
This caveat is big enough you could park the Empire State Building within it.Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The USPS is going more and more to locating sales locations in rented storefronts rather than maintaining their own properties as dedicated post office buildings. There are several of them around here, and more coming. In those situations, the parking lot is not USPS property, it is the landlord's property, and the USPS prohibition against firearms doesn't come into play until you walk through the door.maestro p said:I don't know how it is in other cities, but here in Vegas, there are a number of small post offices located in small, strip mall units. Often, there is not even signage visible from the street. One could easily be in a shared parking lot and not even be aware they were in a post office parking lot. Perilous, if the law were strictly enforced.
Frankly, I think we should take the win and move on. We'll see what the Government will do, within 45 days.
Got this from Dudley Brown today. From the language, it looks like they will be continuing this fight.
Dear Jim,
We have some great news!
RMGO, in conjunction with our parent organization, the National Association for Gun Rights, won a legal battle in federal court this week over the right to carry.
The court ruled that the United States Postal Service could not ban firearms in the parking lots of their offices.
However, the court did uphold a ban in the physical buildings of the U.S.P.S., but RMGO and NAGR are planning on appealing that portion of the ruling.
Read the press release below to find out more details about the case.
For now, enjoy this victory in the ongoing fight to preserve our right to keep and bear arms!
-Dudley
This was from a general e-mail blast. Nothing proprietary or copyrighted here.