Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Rules Post Office Gun Ban Unconstitutional
AmmoLand ^ | October 2, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 10/07/2025 6:43:30 AM PDT by marktwain

Judge Reed O’Connor, a Chief United States District judge in the Fifth Circuit, has determined the ban on possession and carry of arms in common use in Post Offices and on property owned by the Post Office is an infringement on the rights protected by the Second Amendment. From the decision:

 The Court determines that both 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) are inconsistent with the principles that underpin this Nation’s regulatory tradition. Thus, they are unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms inside a an ordinary post office or on post office property.

The decision was published on September 30, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The case is Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et al., v. Pamela Bondi.  The Second Amendment Foundation and two Texas citizens, Gavin Pate and George Mandry, were also parties to the lawsuit against the Federal government as represented by Pamela Bondi, United States Attorney General (AG). The original lawsuit was brought against Merrick Garland when he was AG on June 18, 2024.

Both the regulatory ban on firearms or other weapons in Post Offices and the Statutory ban on weapons in federal government buildings are relatively recent.  The first prohibition on firearms in government buildings occurred in 1964. The regulatory ban on weapons in Post Offices was put in place in 1972.

Judge O’Connor handed down a summary judgment, which is appropriate when the facts of the case are not disputed. The only dispute in this case is about the law. Because the plaintiffs did not specify whether the case was a facial challenge or an “as applied” challenge, Judge O’Connor decided to treat it as an “as applied” challenge. The remedy only applies to the plaintiffs carrying ordinary firearms in an ordinary


(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; court; gunban; mail; postoffice; unconstitutional
Bans on the carry of firearms in post offices are a late development. A regulation was filed in 1964. A statute against the carry of weapons in federal buildings was passed in 1972.

They are both held to be unconstitutional in this case, as applied.

1 posted on 10/07/2025 6:43:30 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Excellent


2 posted on 10/07/2025 6:49:55 AM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the Days of Lot; They did Eat, They Drank, They Bought, They Sold ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Seems reasonable to lift this ban!

After all: Would the Post Office be justified in abrogating our Free Speech rights on their premises? How about our 5A rights?

Regards,

3 posted on 10/07/2025 6:54:18 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Yes of course the ruling is correct but I don’t understand how the a justice from the 5th has jurisdiction. Should this not have come from the 9th?


4 posted on 10/07/2025 6:55:46 AM PDT by iamgalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaveFerris

Excellent, yes, but only applies to the Plaintiffs stated in the case and only in that circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi). We have some time to go before SCOTUS gets the case and/or federal legislation changes.


5 posted on 10/07/2025 6:56:15 AM PDT by ripnbang ("An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man, a subject.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ripnbang

Precedent, I pray 🙏


6 posted on 10/07/2025 6:57:14 AM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the Days of Lot; They did Eat, They Drank, They Bought, They Sold ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

People who “Go Postal” don’t follow what a sign says, anyway.


7 posted on 10/07/2025 7:05:53 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The first prohibition on firearms in government buildings occurred in 1964. The regulatory ban on weapons in Post Offices was put in place in 1972.

And then in the 80s, going Postal became a thing.

8 posted on 10/07/2025 7:06:58 AM PDT by Pollard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Kid of proves the feds make rules but don’t have to go by them huh.


9 posted on 10/07/2025 7:09:14 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iamgalt

Yes of course the ruling is correct but I don’t understand how the a justice from the 5th has jurisdiction. Should this not have come from the 9th?


Texas is in the Fifth Circuit.


10 posted on 10/07/2025 7:12:19 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Wonder if this is going to be pressed forward to other govt buildings


11 posted on 10/07/2025 7:23:30 AM PDT by Godzilla (“When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty” - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

There is a picture of gun-bearing Black Panthers in the California State Capitol in the 1960s.

It is my understanding that they were asked to go and left without being arrested.

There was a time when one could freely walk up to the front door of the Virginia governor’s mansion. Until Jeb Bush took office, I believe one could also freely walk up to the door of the Florida governor’s mansion.

In the first half of the 19th Century, one could often enter the White House if properly dressed.


12 posted on 10/07/2025 7:23:35 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Ah yes, l was confusing this with a Ca law.


13 posted on 10/07/2025 7:25:27 AM PDT by iamgalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Good!


14 posted on 10/07/2025 7:25:33 AM PDT by faithhopecharity ("Politicians aren't born, they're excreted." Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 to 43 BCE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iamgalt; marktwain

The article mislabeled the judge.

He’s a “judge”, not a “justice”. Judges sit at the trial court, which is where this was. Justices sit at an appellate level.

Specifically, he is a judge from the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division.

Now, ND Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, but that has nothing to do with anything here, except in the unlikely event a justice was sitting at the trial court level, but which can happen if someone is sick or something.

So the author threw a red herring at his readers.


15 posted on 10/07/2025 7:35:38 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Orange is the new brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

.


16 posted on 10/07/2025 8:17:33 AM PDT by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

Where does the article refer to Judge O’Conner as a justice?
I do not see it.


17 posted on 10/07/2025 8:23:35 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It says he sits in the 5th Circuit in the first sentence, which he does not, specifically “ Chief United States District judge in the Fifth Circuit”, which makes no sense.

He would be a justice, not a judge, if he sat at the appellate court. And there is no such thing as the “district judge in the fifth circuit”.

He’s the Chief Judge of the ND Texas, Fort Worth Division.

Yes, Texas is part of the 5th Circuit, but that has nothing to do with anything unless there is an appeal.


18 posted on 10/07/2025 8:32:39 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Orange is the new brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I think the confusion is because there is a famous Texas appellate judge “justice Occonnor,” maybe the same person, but that’s a state justice position.


19 posted on 10/07/2025 8:34:30 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Orange is the new brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
FPC WIN: Federal Judge Strikes Down Post Office Gun Ban

10/03/2025 11:57:09 AM PDT · by Yo-Yo · 25 replies
Firearms Policy Coalition ^ | September 30, 2025

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4344157/posts

20 posted on 10/07/2025 10:15:29 AM PDT by Paal Gulli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson