Bonidy vs US Postal Service

Since this case involves the government, both sides have 60 days to appeal under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. If one party files an appeal, the other party has an additional 14 days to file a cross appeal or may file within the original 60 days, whichever is later. Both the plaintiffs and the government lost on one claim. Both can file a notice of appeal.
 
Another news article about the ruling:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/a-second-amendment-victory-in-colorado/#ixzz2b6YbfPyV

"The district court concluded that the Supreme Court in Heller upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms openly outside the home for self-defense, subject only to reasonable public safety-related restrictions."
Click to expand...

"As to the interior of the Avon Post Office, the district court found it a “sensitive” place and. therefore, the Postal Service’s regulation is presumptively valid there. The matter of the public parking lot, however, is another story. Government ownership alone is not sufficient to restrict constitutional liberties, the district court held. The lot is not a government building, it’s not a place where government business is conducted, nor is there meaningful limitation on those who enter it. In fact, the Postal Service lot is little different from other nearby public lots."
Click to expand...

I was very happy to that last bit of reasoning regarding 'meaningful limitation on those who enter it'. I have long thought that the standard for what constitutes a sensitive place should include a requirement for controlled egress and ingress and armed security personnel. If a place is sensitive enough to suspend the right to self-defense, then such measures are reasonable and should be required.

My logic is that if the government is going to suspend the right to self defense for security reasons, then a standard such as the following ought to apply:

1)The government must treat the zone according to the security risk they assert exists by controlling ingress/egress and provide alternative means of address the amplified security risk they allege.

2) The government must assume the burden and liability of defending those whose self-defense rights it suspends.

Such a standard is far from novel or radical (with the exception of liability for failure to defend). These factors have long existed in in every other typically sensitive place such as airports, jails, courthouses, political rallies, police stations, etc.

Typical so-called gun free school zones would not qualify under such a standard, but could and should be brought into compliance, IMO. (Or, in the alternative, allow otherwise lawful carry) The increased security should be self-evident.
 
If a place is sensitive enough to suspend the right to self-defense, then such measures are reasonable and should be required.
Click to expand...
Put another way, if a place is NOT sensitive to require these measures, it's arguable not sensitive enough to deny the fundamental civil right of self defense.
 
Appeal Time has run without an appeal

It has been 45 days and it does not appear that USPS has appealed the ruling. :eek:

So the case has little value because it has no precident.
 
So the case has little value because it has no precedent.
Click to expand...
It is more accurate to say it has limited value as precedent. Lawyers routinely cite to district court opinions but they obviously aren't as influential as a federal appellate court. In this case, the judge did not recommend it for official publication which makes it a bit more obscure. It can still be reported and does have a WestLaw citation -- 2013 WL 3448130. That means it can be found by anyone with a subscription to WestLaw (a legal database).
 
Non-government litigants get 45 days to appeal. IIRC, Government litigants get 60 days. On Sept 6th, the Government (USPS is considered a governmental organization, by statute) filed their appeal. That gave Boniday the extra 15 days, which they used and filed a cross-appeal.

07/09/2013 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 32 and 33[RECAP] : the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner. The other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 7/9/2013.(rpmcd) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 45 JUDGMENT by Clerk and Approved by Court re 44 : the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner.The other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied. Plaintiffs Tad Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights shall have their costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of entry of judgment, by Clerk on 7/9/2013. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/16/2013 46 Proposed Bill of Costs by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document STIPULATION AS TO BILL OF COSTS)(Manley, James) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/16/2013 47 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 1,530.65 against Defendants (ervsl, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

09/06/2013 48 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, 45 Clerk's Judgment,, by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin, United States Postal Service (Olson, Lisa) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 49 LETTER Transmitting Notice of Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee not paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record)(dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 50 USCA Case Number 13-1374 for 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/18/2013 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 45 Clerk's Judgment by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights (Filing fee $ 455, Receipt Number 1082-3540103) (Manley, James) (Modified on 9/19/2013 to indicate cross appeal) (dbrow, ). (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/19/2013 52 LETTER Transmitting Notice of Cross Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record)(dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/19/2013 53 USCA Case Number 13-1391 for 51 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/20/2013 54 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re 48 Notice of Appeal by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin, John Potter, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service (Olson, Lisa) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 55 LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file.( Appeal No. 13-1374) Text Only Entry (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

10/01/2013 56 LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL, filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file. ( Appeal No. 13-1391) Text Only Entry (dbrow, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
Click to expand...

I'll be looking up the CA10 PACER info later today.
 
There are no pleadings yet, but here is what is on the first docket.

13-1374 - Bonidy [Appellee] v. USPS [Appellant]

09/20/2013 [10109960] Docketing statement filed by Patrick Donahoe, Mr. Michael Kervin and USPS. Served on 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374] DT

09/20/2013 [10109999] Filed notice record is complete. Served on 09/20/2012. [13-1374] TEXT ONLY ENTRY.

09/20/2013 [10110322] Notice of appearance submitted by James Martin Manley; Steven James Lechner for Appellees Mr. Tab Bonidy and National Association for Gun Rights for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374]--[Edited 09/23/2013 by LG to remove PDF from entry, as pleading was filed on 9/23/2013] JMM

09/23/2013 [10110343] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Steven J. Lechner, Esq. and Mr. James Martin Manley for Mr. Tab Bonidy and National Association for Gun Rights. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 09/23/2013. Manner of Service: email [13-1374]

09/27/2013 [10112075] Notice of Mediation Conference filed by the Tenth Circuit Mediation Office. Case is referred for mediation conferencing; conference scheduled for 10/07/2013 at 10:00 am (MDT). Please review the attached Notice for additional information. [13-1374, 13-1391]

10/01/2013 [10113197] Cross-appeal briefing schedule set. Issued on 10/01/2013. First brief on cross-appeal is due on 11/12/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. Appellants' appendix is due on 11/12/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374, 13-1391]

10/18/2013 [10117926] On the court's own motion and pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 33.1, order filed by (CLK) extending time to file first brief on cross-appeal and appendix until 11/20/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374, 13-1391]
Click to expand...

13-1391 Bonidy [Appellant] v. USPS [Appellee] (This docket is essentially word for word of the first one, except for who is the appellant and/or appellee).

So, it looks like the Government will get the first pleading on Nov. 20th (barring any request for time).
 
Let me get this straight. I'm going to the club to do some shooting but I decide to stop and get the mail at the local post office. So I park my car in the parking lot for the 30 seconds it takes me to check my box and I'm committing a crime? A federal offense?
 
Let me get this straight. I'm going to the club to do some shooting but I decide to stop and get the mail at the local post office. So I park my car in the parking lot for the 30 seconds it takes me to check my box and I'm committing a crime? A federal offense?
Click to expand...
Heretofore, yes. That's essentially what this case is about. There may have been some grey area when the post office shared a parking lot with private businesses. In any case, the court wasn't buying the 'sensitive places' argument for the parking lot, but upheld it inside the building. The government is appealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top