This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 10/03/2025 11:57:09 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
FORT WORTH, TX (September 30, 2025) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) secured another landmark victory for individual liberty when Chief District Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas ruled that the federal ban on firearm possession, storage, and carry at United States Post Offices and related properties, including post office parking lots, violates the Second Amendment in the FPC case of Firearms Policy Coalition v. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As Judge O’Connor explained, “it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office—particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden” to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is “unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms” inside a post office or on post office property. The court’s order also blocks the federal government from enforcing its unconstitutional ban against FPC members.
“As we’ve said all along, governments cannot ban weapons in unsecured public spaces, full stop,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps. That ends here. The Second Amendment simply does not permit governments to invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ wherever they please.”
(Excerpt) Read more at firearmspolicy.org ...
The permanent injunction against enforcement of the 'no guns' policy at Post Offices only applies to the members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
It is unclear at this time whether Trump's AG Pam "Show Me the Epstein Files" Blondie will appeal the ruling, or if the injunction will be extended nationwide to all lawful gun owners.
In the meantime, I'd still refrain from carrying on Post Office grounds. (As a reminder, the Post Office prohibited both carry within the building, and parking lot storage.)
For the banglist.
PING A RAMA!..............
What about federal courts?
On an emotional level, I see the difference — crazy people might try to take justice into their own hands and all that. But from the ruling on Post Offices, the language being used makes me think that there is no essential legal difference between a federal post office and a federal court building. If a distinction is made, on what legal basis would it be made? Seems like they just infringe the basic right whenever it seems like a “good idea”.
no essential legal difference between a federal post office and a federal court building
Most post offices do not have armed security.
To me, that seems a little like removing my freedom of speech in the public square because the public square contains news stands selling newspapers. Free speech is already there, so I don’t need to have free speech.
Not a perfect analogy, I suppose. But the Second Amendment is there so that I — me, myself, and I — can defend myself. Having armed security somewhere close by is not a good reason to take away my basic right.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court affirmed that governments can constitutionally prohibit carrying firearms in "sensitive places" but established a new historical test for courts to determine which locations qualify.
It hasn't be litigated yet, but there could be historical examples of weapons being banned in courtrooms, thus meeting the Bruen test for historical precedence.
I am as usual confused. Does this ruling apply nationwide, or just in the Northern District of Texas?
Anyway, I sure agree with Yo-Yo. Better wait for a firm, final confirmation. Because even if you case is ultimately dismissed, it’s the process that’s gonna get you.
Many Americans have to go the Post office for their daily mail since they don’t have home delivery, and many of them walk, ride bicycles, and motorcycles to the PO, but they have to disarm themselves before doing so, which is especially annoying if the walk or ride is part of an exercise program and the PO stop is just a portion of that, it disarms people who live in rural and semi rural areas who should be protected against dogs, dog packs, and animals, yet want to do a long walk with a stop at the PO as part of it.
I think the government would have a more valid cause for banning in a courtroom.
Who would know...unless open carry?...or a family member or “friend” ratted?
The injunction is worded as follows, which leads me to believe that it applies nationwide, but only to members of FPC and SAF.
Thus, the Court DECLARES that:
1. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited
Thus, the Court ENJOINS the Government from the following actions against Plaintiffs:
1. Interpreting or enforcing 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) to prohibit Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.
2. Interpreting or enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to prohibit Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.
I get that. I'm not pushing the issue, because it's all tilting at windmills. But it just seems very blatant to me that this is a right which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED -- and then here is a list of places and circumstances where they can infringe it, and here is a list of places where they used to infringe it but cannot infringe any more, and here is a list where they might infringe it in the future ...
You have NO RIGHTS if the basic and clearly enumerated rights are implemented at the level of "it depends ..."
Summer exercise clothing and federal charges? Not everyone takes federal gun charges and losing gun rights casually enough to face them every time they go to pick up their water bill.
Correct. This ruling is both as far as that court can reach and establishes a two-tier rule where these members may carry and everyone else may not. The door is thus open to ruling the whole law unconstitutional.
Wouldn’t that be considered discrimination against the rest of us? Only these two exclusionary groups are allowed to carry in the Post Office.
Also the mailman does not need help from you shooting his stupivisor
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
NOT TIRED OF WINNING YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.