Posted on 06/08/2024 4:27:51 AM PDT by marktwain
On January 12, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball ruled the federal ban on possession of firearms in post offices is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment.
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. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). 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. See id. at 17, 24. 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.
The United States of America appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss in part, Doc. 57, and the dismissal of count one, Doc. 58, both entered in this action on January 12, 2024.
The ban was instituted in 1972. There was no ban before that.
what about face masks?
“Rights” are worthless if the government can limit them.
bkmk
The PO ban is a lot of trouble for a lot of Americans who not only visit a PO on occasion but who have to get all of their mail there, as much of a problem it is if you are in a car, it keeps you defenseless if you like to pickup your mail during a walk or while bicycling.
I do not recommend anyone taking a weapon into any place where a gun is banned, in particular a court house or cop shop.
But other places such as the Post Office it could be easily done simply by having the weapon well concealed. There is just no way a gun could be detected in most places.
I personally do not take a gun into a PO, but private commercial businesses that have a No Weapons sign on there doors I say to hell with it. I will take a concealed weapon into those places. It’s well concealed and no one will ever know I have one unless I pull it out and brandish it, and I’m not that stupid. If a criminal starts gun play in such a store I will retreat and get the hell out. The gun will come out only if I am directly threatened.
If my memory is correct, Boston has banned masks.
This anti gun, anti vest and other laws are just stupid. What defines a criminal is that they break laws, which means they will break whatever law it takes to have a gun or a vest or a mask. Breaking a law is their business.
What those stupid laws do is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves and being safe.
> If my memory is correct, Boston has banned masks.
California compelled the wearing of masks in post offices even after compulsory mask-wearing was discontinued at the federal level.
so... the question could be asked, who has jurisdiction in federal buildings such as post offices? or is jurisdiction a function of the particular legal domain to which a given law relates?
Certainly good advice.
But if the courts decide that the Post Office cannot ban guns, I guess I'd like to see the reasoning that says courts ARE allowed to ban guns. I understand why they would want to, but it's obvious infringement and why is that OK here but not there?
When I worked at the post office I remember one of the supervisors flashing a gun at me because I refused to do over time.
bottom line is, as always, “IF you think that government is overbearing now just wait until you are completely disarmed”. and THAT, my friends, IS the bottom line. my tagline is truer than most realize.
If someone is conceal carrying, why would they tell anyone?...I’m kinda not knowlegeable on this
Only if they are used when you rob the place:/s
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/-need-protection-mail-carriers-sound-alarm-surge-robberies-rcna25147
You don’t tell someone if you are able to conceal it while wearing your workout shorts and t-shirt, but do you want to face a federal charge, or any serious gun charge if something happens and you are found to have a gun in the Post Office?
Well...If I was a CC holder, and could conceal it well, I think I’d take my chances
Quite a risk to take almost everyday and all year, every year, and often in your desert workout clothes, it would be better for them to change the law.
Well, yeah...”change” the law back to the Constitutional rights!
Postal carriers do not need your help shooting their stupidvisor😄😃😁!
Logically it seems that if California allows a federal government facility like a post office, that it is compelled to allow federal law apply on the premises of that facility.
Pretty simple under the Bruen decision. It was acceptable to ban guns in courtrooms (which usually had armed security in the form of a baliff), when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. There was no statute or history of banning guns in post offices until 1972.
The ban on guns in courtrooms was accepted as a legitimate restriction on the right to keep and bear arms at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. Bans on guns in post offices were not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.