Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction

Usacarry.com ^ | 3/27/26 | Luke McCoy

[Puppage]

Key Takeaways A federal judge in Connecticut upheld the ban on firearms in U.S. post offices, creating a split among federal courts on Second Amendment rights. Judge Oliver ruled the ban does not violate the Second Amendment, citing historical traditions of restricting firearms in crowded areas.

The case was brought by David Nastri and We The Patriots USA, who argued for the right to carry firearms in post offices for self-defense. This ruling contrasts with a Texas decision finding the ban unconstitutional, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court review of the issue.

The ongoing legal battle highlights complexities for armed citizens, as some retain injunction protection while others remain subject to the ban.

---

TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:

[Puppage]

Judge Oliver ruled the ban does not violate the Second Amendment, citing historical traditions of restricting firearms in crowded areas.

WTH?

[Bikkuri]

Then, situations like THIS happen:


This was a game (September 1997)...
But it was created because of a real situation (August 20, 1986).

[DeplorablePaul]

Right? If you need self protection anywhere the post office is the place. Neuman!

[marktwain]

It is only a split at the District Court. If the 2nd Circuit upholds the District Court, then it will be a split to grab the attention of the Supreme Court.

My prediction is the 2nd Circuit will uphold the District Court, because the 2nd Circuit may be more anti-Second Amendment than the courts in California!

[Gay State Conservative]

Crowded areas?????

[Puppage]

F’n nuts, right?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Anyone here ever carry concealed when going to the post office? Asking for a friend.

[sasquatch]

Don’t want a postal customer going postal.

[chrisser]

I just noticed the sign in our local post office here in WV. It’s not on the door, but right next to the service desk so you don’t see it until you’re already in line.

Pretty sure it’s roundly ignored.

[antidemoncrat]

“Judge Oliver ruled the ban does not violate the Second Amendment, citing historical traditions of restricting firearms in crowded areas”

Another regal judge eaten up by self importance?

[ClearCase_guy]

Judge Oliver ruled the ban does not violate the “no infringement” clause of the Second Amendment, citing historical traditions of infringing the right all over the place whenever the government felt like it.

[gibsonguy]

The rats never stop chipping away at the 2nd. Iran has shown us just how precious and important it is. The Mullahs have the guns the people don’t so it is almost impossible for the people to get free.

[ansel12]

That means walking, bicycling, motorized wheelchair to the post office is done unarmed, and it isn’t much better on a motorcycle.

Even cars have little kids in them and of course observing someone slip a $1000 pistol under a seat in a parking lot is pretty simple.

[Jeff Chandler]

Not that you know of.

[dljordan]

They just make it up out of their feelings.

[dljordan]

They just make it up out of their feelings.

[for-q-clinton]

Well the good news is this court is better off getting this case vice a more liberal court. So let’s get all these gun cases brought up to the scotus to get this ironed out.

[Repeat Offender]

It’s fer the chillrun.

[libertylover]

WTH?

Override the Constitution and make his own rule.

[takebackaustin]

Accidentally a couple days ago. Wife wanted to mail two birthday cards, I thought she would be drop them in a slot. But no she wanted to go to a table, address and sign them, etc. After a couple minutes in there I realised “oh shit” and walked out without saying anything. (Duly licensed but that doesn’t help}