CO - Fed Lawsuit Challenges Post Office Firearm Policy

[Kevlar]

Attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation are taking on the US Postal Service's ban on any firearm on USPS property. The challenge is on behalf of Debbie and Tab Bonidy of Avon, Colorado and the National Association for Gun Rights. A lawsuit, Bonidy et al v. USPS et al, was filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.....

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/10/challenge-to-ban-on-firearms-on-postal.html

 

[Ink]

...

 

[Len-2A Training]

The link to the case is on scribd and they require you to have a Facebook account to "log in" and I'll never do that. You also can NOT print it from their site, only read it.

Anyone have a link to a clean, accessible PDF copy w/o requiring subscriptions/fees?

I found a cached copy of the text, but there is no formatting and it looks a mess on the screen.

TIA

 

[KMaurer]

The only thing there is the complaint itself.

See the attached image files. (PDFs are too big to attach.)

Ken

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ken,

Thanks. Feel free to Email me the other docs directly.

 

[Jaxon]

So now that the stone has been kicked over, they'll be paying more attention.

 

[SClaflin]

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2817 (2008) (emphasis added).

This will be an uphill battle, and I wouldn't expect the District Court or the 10th Circuit to rule in our favor.

The most interesting aspect of this decision will be the treatment of the exemption clauses in the respective statutes (government buildings in 18 U.S.C. 930(d)(3) and post offices specifically in 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l)); the latter of which is far more narrow ("official purposes"), and the former which arguably allows a licensed individual to carry ("incident to hunting or other lawful purposes").

 

[cekim]

SCOTUS was quite clear that they had no intention in MacDonald of overturning this, yet they gave absolutely no justification for this (and the school/court/Federal Building policy).

They correctly identified the nature and origin (fundamental) of 2A rights as well as the inability to apply "statistics" to balance such a fundamental right (though if you did apply statistics you'd find what we all know that gun free zones are mass-killing zones), yet somehow these restrictions stand without debate?

Given what was said in MacDonald these arguments have a high hurdle based on the tradition of the court, but by the same token, their argument for maintaining these prohibitions was absolutely hollow. I do hope they prevail - literally for the children...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is actually a pretty good challenge, the people at Mountain States Legal have their act together. Where the plaintiffs are on good ground is that they HAVE to go to the PO for their mail. And it's a long trip. They can exercise their 2A rights OR get their mail.

The other interesting thing is that they're challenging a Postal Regulation, NOT 18 USC 930 which is what you normally see posted at the PO and other federal facilities and which also contains an exemption for carry incident to 'other lawful purposes'.

 

[GSG]

Very interesting. Although I'm inclined to agree with SClaflin as far as legal legs go, I think this case makes a very good challenge because of their unique circumstances. At the very least, this case may result in an official opinion on whether or not carry is allowed in a post office, which would be nice.

 

[KMaurer]

SCOTUS was quite clear that they had no intention in MacDonald of overturning this, yet they gave absolutely no justification for this (and the school/court/Federal Building policy).

Yes, they did give a reason. The question was not before them in either Heller or MacDonald. In both cases the only question was that of possession (and as a consequence the question of purchase). Don';t worry, though. Once they're convinced that the Court was serious about what they ruled, the 9th Circuit will undoubtedly discover that disqualifying anyone for any reason is unconstitutional, and that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide free guns to anyone who can't afford one.

Ken

 

[cekim]

Yes, they did give a reason. The question was not before them in either Heller or MacDonald.

I meant, they gave no logical justification for maintaining these bans in the context of their newly "clarified" meaning of 2A.

The reason you give (quite valid legally), would be reason to say nothing on the issue - there were lots of missed opportunities in MacDonald and Heller to say nothing where they said something anyway...

I suspect your reasoning will have to be brought up explicitly in a future case to counter claims that SCOTUS "affirmed" those restrictions in MacDonald and Heller via those statements.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just for relevancy sake, I'll cross-post the USPS No Guns Sign here as well.

 

[DavidC77]

+ 1

 

[Rob Boudrie]

this case may result in an official opinion on whether or not carry is allowed in a post office, which would be nice.

Sort of like how getting the MA "official opinion" if "Reason for issuance" on an LTC-A was a restriction was nice?

When GOAL pushed, the state obliged with the requested information - and the word "Reason" was changed to "Restriction" on LTCs to remove any ambiguity or possibility a person with a Reason/target license could argue he was not, in fact, restricted. It did not take a genius tactician to conclude, in advance, that the state was not going to respond with "All licenses issued for reasons such as target only are in fact unrestricted and allow concealed carry for personal defense".

This is not a "maybe win, can't lose" case, but one that contains downside as well as upside possibilities. Even though USE18 is not being challenged, I would not be surprised if the court goes out of it's way to state that the applicant does not meet the criteria of carrying incidental to lawful purposes so, even if the regulation were overturned, the carry would not be lawful.

 

[GSG]

Sort of like how getting the MA "official opinion" if "Reason for issuance" on an LTC-A was a restriction was nice?

I don't say that lightly. My point is only that I'd like to know if I leave my carry gun in the car because I'm playing it safe or because it's illegal to bring it inside.

 

[Gary599]

On a side note.

When was the last time a post office was held up at gun point?

When was the last time a postal employee was attacked?

You don't and do you know why?

Cause people even dumb bad guys are smart.

Messing with the
Us mail in any way shape or form us a federal crime.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GSG]

Cause people even dumb bad guys are smart.

Messing with the
Us mail in any way shape or form us a federal crime.

The mommy-didn't-hug-me-enough active shooters and hollow-shell-of-a-human drug addicts are quite different from professional criminals who understand risk vs. reward.

 

[Len-2A Training]

On a side note.

When was the last time a post office was held up at gun point?

When was the last time a postal employee was attacked?

You don't and do you know why?

Cause people even dumb bad guys are smart.

Messing with the
Us mail in any way shape or form us a federal crime.

. . . and so is robbing a bank, but perps have been doing it regularly at least in MA!

Some may be deterred from going to the Big House, but many seem to lack enough brain cells to realize that it's a dumb thing to do.

 

[basscatfrank]

On a side note.

When was the last time a post office was held up at gun point?

When was the last time a postal employee was attacked?

You don't and do you know why?

Cause people even dumb bad guys are smart.




Messing with the
Us mail in any way shape or form us a federal crime.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two female postal employees in Tennessee were shot dead during an apparent robbery attempt last month. It happens.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39723346/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There was a hearing Monday and apparently the judge granted the defendant's MTD and gave the Plaintiffs until April 20 to file an amended complaint. I haven't seen an order yet so I don't know the judge's reasoning.

 

[OfficerObie59]

There was a hearing Monday and apparently the judge granted the defendant's MTD and gave the Plaintiffs until April 20 to file an amended complaint. I haven't seen an order yet so I don't know the judge's reasoning.

Yeah, I looked around too, but it doesn't look like the motion ruling has been uploaded to any of the services yet.

The MTD was based on a 12(b)(6) motion for failing to state a claim. As expected, the USPS basically took the language out of Heller, no 2nd AMD rights in a post office, blah, blah....

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Update

The Bonidys filed a second amended compliant on April 8th of this year. The usual replies and responses ensued. A hearing is scheduled for November 18th.

More...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Bump!

Oral arguments tomorrow. Good luck to the Bonidys! We don't know anyone directly associated with this case, so we won't be able to provide a post-arguments update. [sad2]

 

[Ink]

This should be interesting!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The motions hearing for this case was [finally] held on 6/18/13. Now we wait for a decision. I'll try to get more information posted about the case on Comm2A's website.

\

 

[shamrockjr]

What would be nice is if this turns out to be a loss, that any companies that disallow firearms on their property could be civilly sued if a shooting occurs on their property and their patrons, by virtue of the ban, didn't have the means to defend themselves. Or perhaps a stronger argument would be the company did not provide adequate security to neutralize a potential threat.

I know I'm dreaming but I'd love to see us pro 2A'ers get some comeuppance in these liberally stacked courts.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

USPS Parking Lot NOT a Sensitive Place

Decision

I'm still reading it.

 

[rickinma]

parking lots where govt employees load trucks = sensitive
Post office and govt buildings =sensitive
Parking lot where commoners go = not sensitive?
I liked the language about 2nd am right to open carry but disappointed they think the PO is sensitive

Am I missing something?

 

[soloman02]

I like this sentence .

In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment

We won on the parking lot but lost on the inside of the post office. I think this was the expected but not desired result.

Final summary:

In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. The Avon Post Office Building is a sensitive place and the ban imposed by the USPS Regulation is a presumptively valid restriction of that liberty.

The Plaintiff has failed to present evidence to rebut that presumption. The parking lot adjacent to the building is not a sensitive place and the Defendants have failed to show that an absolute ban on firearms is substantially related to their important public safety objective.

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.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that 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, and it is FURTHER ORDERED, that the other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied.