CO - Fed Lawsuit Challenges Post Office Firearm Policy

I love (sarcastic) how they can declare it a sensitive place for lack of security. This presumes that the mere presense of CCW somehow puts it in danger. It further ignores the danger to their patrons created by the attractive nuissance the facility creates (aka: a gun free zone where one would "go postal").

The finding of OC as protected as nice, but the rational basis nonsense that Scalia created is a pox on justice... There is no rational basis on fundamental rights. There is due process protection.
 
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.

Exactly. It was a crappy ruling because of the logic. The one thing that was gained is mostly inconsequential, because people leave guns in their cars in USPO parking lots all the time -- and for that matter, carry inside no matter what the law says.
 
Do you have a link to any of this round handy? Who is appealing which part of the decision... or are both parties appealing?

Thanks!

Has the government shown reason(s) why the PO is declared a sensitive place? Is it solely because it's a federal building? It's not like a courtroom, it's basically a retail store for pete's sake.
 
Can I carry to the hearing?
[laugh]

No, this case is about post offices, not court buildings. Federal court buildings have a specific place in 18 USC 930 and would be a different case from this one which is covered not by 18 USC 930 but by a CFR. It would also not be a very good case, at least from the tactic taken in Bonidy, becuase, unlike post offices, federal courthouses ARE secure facilities.
 
When was the last time a post office was held up at gun point?

Remember the expression, "going postal?". Well, it comes from somewhere. Specifically, a rash of employee mental breakdowns in the 80's and 90's where said disgruntled employees started shooting the place up. I suspect they are more concerned about this than being robbed.
 
I'm not saying it is rationale or intelligent decision making, I'm just saying that the sheep get scared and since post offices have a history of these types of events its the kind of thing that allows stupid policies to endure.

Also keep in mind, there are a lot of 20-somethings around here and most of these shootings were between 83 and 93, when the 20 somethings were not even born….
 
When was the last time a post office was held up at gun point?

That is less the issue than disarming people on there way to and from the post office and, if the defendant's appeal is successful, requiring one be disarmed on the entire trip to/from due to the parking lot ban.
 
Remember the expression, "going postal?". Well, it comes from somewhere. Specifically, a rash of employee mental breakdowns in the 80's and 90's where said disgruntled employees started shooting the place up. I suspect they are more concerned about this than being robbed.

If memory serves, it wasn't even a "rash", it happened a few times, but they got lots of press, so we all think of it as "a thing that happened a lot".

How old are the regulations that ban guns from post offices?

Edit:

Nevermind: 1972; first sentence of "statement of the case" in the brief. Duh...
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying it is rationale or intelligent decision making, I'm just saying that the sheep get scared and since post offices have a history of these types of events its the kind of thing that allows stupid policies to endure.

Also keep in mind, there are a lot of 20-somethings around here and most of these shootings were between 83 and 93, when the 20 somethings were not even born….

Dang it man some of us don't always want to be reminded of how old we are!
 
If Bonidy wins, it wouldn't apply to most post offices that don't have a 24 hour unsecured lobby; more specifically, it wouldn't apply to carrying in the customer area in front of the counter.

Do I understand that correctly?


What's interesting is that:

All the "going postal" events (according to Wikipedia) happened more than 10 years *after* the regulation was enacted.

and

and in over 30 years (between '83 and '14) there were only 22 (also Wikipedia) in over 35,000 post offices.
 
All the "going postal" events (according to Wikipedia) happened more than 10 years *after* the regulation was enacted.

Yeah, that is correct. But why are you employing logic? When have gun control and logic ever crossed paths? The fact that it happened a few times is all it takes for people to decide that keeping guns out of post offices is a good idea. Newtown only happened once but the asshats in Hartford decided banning AR15's was a good way to prevent it from happening again. And we all know how pointless that was, but it made all the sheep feel better….
 
I think that there might be ramifications beyond the USPS if Bonidy wins. What about the restriction on carrying of US Army Corps of Engineers property? Not in buildings, but say along the Cape Cod Canal. Don't the same conditions apply. Non secure areas, no protection offered by the COE, guns not allowed.

Just a thought, maybe not a good one.
 
There's a case directly on point re corps of engineers property. Morris v CoE, I think. Last I recall, they won a PI and the merits were pending.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
 
If and when I have to get a CO Post Office Box to pick up my mail while armed, THAT will be an undue burden to consider...
 
I see Bonady as a step toward challenging the extensive restrictions that some states place on where guns may be carried. (But I don't think any of the states in the 10th circuit are particularly bad in that respect.)
 
I see Bonady as a step toward challenging the extensive restrictions that some states place on where guns may be carried. (But I don't think any of the states in the 10th circuit are particularly bad in that respect.)

You're correct. Bonidy is all about build a foundation of case law challenges restrictions on sensitive places that can be applied to BOTH state and federal law/regulations. Ironically enough, Massachusetts is one of the better states with respect to sensitive places.
 
Back
Top Bottom