Federal judge rules ban on firearms in post offices unconstitutional
thehill.com
A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.
The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.
Now do courthouses and see how well that goes.
...specifically hers.
Restrictions on carry in court houses would likely pass the Bruen test.
I don't see any reason why a court should be treated any differently though.
Well yeah, the Courts make up rules and tests to advance whatever agenda is on the docket. They work backwards from the result they want.
We all do that. Whether we're aware of it or not. Some of us are more aware of it than others.
What historical analog can you point to that wouldn’t also apply to post offices?
Banks
Banks are private entities. Apples and oranges.
You know what else is public? Courthouses.
Florida is such a shit hole.
We're not "such a shit hole". We're an exquisite shit hole.
surprise! ;)
Edit: Ha ha, downvoted...Florida Man is watching!
We look at Florida the way the rest of the world looks at us.
Yeah, Florida made itself such a reputation, that when there was an article that the law about financial disclosure of politicians passed it just raised questions "what's the catch?". People are not used to seeing anything positive coming from that state.
I'm actually in Florida (but on an Aussie Lemmy instance); you wouldn't believe the number of politicians, mostly from wealthy beach communities, who are vacating their offices because of that law. It's a total shit show.
Cool, so the place that mass shootings in the US began, and coined its own phrase, now must allow armed nut jobs inside. What could go wrong!?
The USPS has been abused by DeJoy, another trump appointee, who filled the fleet with more gas vehicles with less efficiency than previous models. That and removing public mail boxes for “reasons that totally didn’t have to do with mail-in voting helping Democrats win elections, promise.”
It wasn't just blue boxes, he also shut down sorting machines, slowing mail processing in another attempt to delay mail-in ballots. Luckily we weren't sending these off to get sorted at the plant and would take them to the town hall directly which probably helped circumvent a lot of late ballots. Can't say this was done in every office but in my local area I know we did that.
Edit: a word
Quite literally all but 1 came after the 1972 ban.
Also yet another bootlicking judge leaving the guy charged with nothing but resisting arrest.
What do you imagine was blocking such people from carrying in the first place? A sign?
"Well shit Jethro. Sign says it right there. 'No nutty gunners allowed.' Let's go put our shit back in the truck. 'Parently the libs won't 'allow' us to shoot the place up. Dang it!"
People like you are why our politicians waste political capital on bullshit laws instead of working towards real solutions. You actually believe carry bans are effective? Ignorant at best, a childish conception of human behavior, and that's me being charitable.
"Well, by golly I don't like it! A ban should do nicely! Put those bad people in their place for once!"
Yeah. Worked for alcohol, abortion and drugs, didn't it?
Fuck are you on about? I know, bag on Florida, score internet points, feel righteous. Getting that dopamine hit? Feeling smart?
Know why you hear so much crazy shit about Florida?
We got 21.7 million people here, third most populous state in the union. (A million is "a lot" for those of you lacking math.) Yeah, we gonna have some fruits and nuts.
We got "sunshine laws", a liberal idea, one I adore, that allows free reporting of crime and much more.
Perhaps we should rescind that? Take the wind out of the sails for people like you?
We got a nut case governor, who is certainly going to lose his next election. LOL, we can't do worse.
Where you from? Bet money I can bag on your state as hard or harder.
A lot to unpack here but I'll just focus on this;
The term "going postal" is what they're referring to.
And that started after carry ban laws were passed
There were mass shootings prior to the post office.
Freedom is scary, get over it. If you crave safety go live in an authoritarian society like China.
I'm pretty free and never have to fear that the jackass in front of me on the highway will pull a gun if I look at him wrong. Crazy how a gun isn't necessary for freedom.
Can you just go back to Reddit please?
I see you would prefer an echo chamber reinforcing your beliefs.
Seeing other people’s viewpoints and understanding their thoughts on an issue can be difficult.
Freedom is scary, get over it.
Hahaha literally a fucking caricature response. Fuck your viewpoints and your dementia ridden thoughts.
It's this simple: if it's legal to carry a gun somewhere then you have no idea which armed people are responsible, sane gun owners; if it's illegal to carry a gun somewhere, then anyone with a gun is therefore not a sane, responsible gun owner, which is really damn good to know before they are pointing the gun at someone.
No it doesn't prevent crazy people with guns, but it let's you know that anyone with a gun is a threat and measures should be taken immediately.
By this logic concealed carry would be acceptable and if someone shows you their gun they are a threat. Which is always illegal already.
Not by any logic I know but let's hear it.
Cool, now defend desantis
The thing is that the experiment you imagine --implementing common-sense gun-reform-- has been run hundreds of times in other countries and the result was not, as you hypothesize, that suddenly they were overrun by bad guys with guns who don't care about gun laws, but rather was that they saw precipitous declines in gun violence and gun-related deaths.
Basically, your hypothesis, which you and others take for granted as evidently true, is objectively incorrect, and has been shown to be so many times. What does a rational actor do when their hypothesis is shown to be incorrect? Do they continue to defend it? Help me make sense of your thinking, because what it looks like to me is a complete refusal to confront and accept reality.
Going postal now legal in Florida.
Last time I checked killing people is still murder in Florida, which is a crime.
There are many other common everyday items in society that can kill people if misused, yet they are not illegal in the post office.
Edit: Wow soo many downvotes for simply pointing out the fact that murder is still illegal in Florida.
Isn't Florida a stand your ground state?
"I'm in danger..."
Yes, Florida is a stand your ground state. We have no legal obligation to flee when attacked. We can fight back and use lethal force if necessary.
Slow down there, George Zimmerman.
Those skittles and hoodie were so much more dangerous than any gun.
Still don't get how he got off in that case
Trayvon Martin was black and it's Florida. I think it's pretty much that simple.
The case has been argued in court and Zimmerman was found innocent by a jury of his peers.
And you don't see any problem with that, even though he did kill an innocent and unarmed person?
I see. So OJ Simpson also did not murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend, correct?
OJ was acquitted of the charges by a jury of his peers and is considered innocent.
The Zimmerman case had a lot more relevant eyewitness evidence as well as an audio recording of the shooting. None of this existed for the OJ trial.
So OJ didn't kill his ex-wife and her husband. You believe that, correct?
I was not on the jury in that courtroom. I have to trust that our peers made the right decision.
I see. So you believe court decisions always determines truth.
In that case, evolution is false. Scopes lost his case and was fined $100 for teaching evolution.
No, no, and no. If your are president you can totally murder and it is not a crime unless you are impeached and convicted - heard from a source that is considered reliable in Florida.
That is a very flawed opinion put forth in a court case outside of the state of Florida. Murder is still illegal in Florida.
Are these other common everyday items purpose built for killing someone?
Killing multiple someones from across the room...?
No more so than firearms.
Wrong.
These people are out of their fucking minds. Nothing’s ever enough.
OK, let's roll it back.
Now I can't carry in a Post Office. Sound good?
Now how do you propose to enforce that law? Perhaps a sign on the door saying, "No bad guys allowed."
So weird seeing comments like yours. Let me quote Sir Terry Pratchett, wild conservative (LMAO having wrote that...)
And from another great book of his:
For those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so liberal, he was writing about trans rights before you kids ever heard those words put together.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
Uhhhhhh, who put a bug up your bonnet?
No need to bring Sir Terry Pratchett into this.
Jesus fucking Christ guys
I WILL FIGHT FOR MY FREEDOM IN THE POST OFFICE
NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE MY GUNS
/s
We should make sure it's also unconstitutional to block guns at:
With the exception of the courthouse, those examples are privately owned locations which can currently not allow firearms to their whim. Courthouse gun-free zones are constitutional and reaffirmed via Bruen.
The 3 other examples are: Theaters, arenas, public events reserved via permit, etc.
Depending on the state, any private location can choose to allow firearms and some states have the rule of law in that. In states where disallowing firearms does not have the rule of law, the individual going against the wishes of the location or event can be asked to leave under threat of trespassing as an unwelcomed individual.
Opening up those locations to firearms would also negate all other laws that ban carry on private property or otherwise public properties reserved by a private party as none would qualify as a constitutional gun-free zone.
Oh I'm sure that's coming.
I need a gun when I go to the post office to protect myself from the postal workers when they decide to go postal.
Similarly, going postal is back on the table!
The case was literally about a postal worker... I was flabbergasted haha.
Do you think the people who decided to shoot up their place of work would change their mind because the government made guns illegal in their place of work? Like the only reason they're not comitting to a mass shooting and suicide is because they may get arrested for carrying in a no carry zone? I can't really see this making going postal any more a thing than it is currently.
Be interesting to see how the appeal goes. It’s going to take a while to thin out those Trump judges.
Honestly, this is going to be the real and lasting problem of his (hopefully) single-term. The justice system (specifically the supreme court) is going to be fucked for many years to comes. That is unless congress actually expands or sets some kind of limits.
I'm fifty. Guaranteed I'm going to be dead before the supreme court is fixed, so this is my life now.
this investigation is a huge waste of resources
Bunch of scared insecure children on the right. Recommend a listen to Malcolm Gladwell 6 part series on gun violence for the history of the rights obsession with 2A.
I want to open carry an ar15 in an MRI room. If you prohibit that, you are violating my constitutional rights!
If you say that there are exceptions to those rights the I think we have a crack that we need to rip open juuuuust a little wider.
I love how open carry was banned in California by Republican legislation and the law was signed by fucking none other than conservative golden calf, Ronald Reagan.
And why? Because the Black Panthers were making white people nervous.
There's no moral or logical consistency until you realize everything they do is self serving and any given stance is subject to change whenever convenient.
Get a constitutional ammendment passed then. The crack is defined now and only that can legitimately change it.
This is a ridiculous ruling, but the reason the ban on guns in post offices makes many gun owners so angry is that unlike pretty much any other no-gun zone laws, it includes all of the property, including the parking lot.
So if a licensed person removes their gun and leaves it in the car so they can go into the post office, they've still committed a felony by parking there.
So instead they'll park in the street. And if the lot is mostly empty and there's a car parked in the street in front of the post office, it's a bright neon sign to thieves that breaking into that car will score them a gun.
Turns out there's a surprisingly simple way to avoid that whole situation...
Some people are required to carry firearms. If your job is armed security, you shouldn't have a potential felony charge for going to the post office after work and dropping a letter in the night drop with your gun locked in the car.
Just have federal buildings follow the laws of the states they're in regarding the definition of premises for firearms. That is - apply it to the buildings, but not to the cars in the parking lot.
You shouldnt take the gun you use for work home. That would solve it.
What's a more secure place for a firearm? Unattended in a locker or actively in the possession of the person licensed to have it?
Locker 100%
How so? Where do you keep your wallet? How about your keys?
The most secure place to store something isn't to leave it unattended. It's to actively have it on your person.
Do you take everything valuable from your house and your car with you from wherever you go? Or do you just lock them up and leave them unattended? Lol
The most secure place to keep something is to leave it locked up in a safe place. A person can get robbed...even if they have a gun, lol
I obviously can't be in physical control of everything I own, but extra precautions have to be taken with handguns. If someone steals my Xbox or camera gear, it sucks. If someone steals my gun it's way more serious.
For my pistol I take extra precautions beyond keeping them in a box at the office that I don't control. I have a hidden safe in the floor of my car bolted down such that removing it would first require the removal of the gas tank. I also have a safe at the house for my long guns that's both hidden and concreted in so that a jackhammer would be required to remove it.
The combination to the safes are in my head and written in a sealed envelope in a safety deposit box in case I die.
Whether it's hidden in a holster, in my car, or at my house my firearms are more secure than keeping them at an office where I have no control over who has access to them.
It's interesting that your only concern is a bad guy taking your gun. Whereas, from our perspective, you are the one who could crack at any time and go on a rampage. If you have a gun for work, you should not have that gun outside of work. You are not responsible for stolen property or damage at work outside of your work hours, unless you willfully leave a weapon unlocked.
I wonder how the court would respond to a petition to allow firearms in court rooms. It's a god-given American freedom, guaranteed by the second amendment right?
It would respond that there are valid reasons not to allow guns in courthouses, which is true.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that's debatable. There certainly were when sending money was a thing but now, I think I agree with the court now. I wouldn't strongly disagree with keeping the ban either though.
All it takes is one guy with a gun that's pissed off about a lost package.
That's true literally everywhere. Pissed at cashier at McDonald's, pissed at a driver on the street, ...
Maybe don't give guns to people with anger issues.
Yep, including Post Offices.
I guess we’re just going to have regular shootouts at the ok corral.
So anyone surprised by this ruling must believe that folks, licensed and legally carrying, are disarming and leaving their shit in the car to go into specific buildings. That's stupid. All that does is leave a gun one broken window away from someone already committing crimes who in the excitement of finding a weapon might suddenly graduate to doing much worse crimes. Keeping your piece on your person, holstered and concealed is the only responsible approach if you are going to carry.
Um, I don't take my gun in. I remove the magazine, empty the chamber, remove the slide and carry the slide in one pocket and the magazine in another. The lower, the part legally defined as a gun, is locked in the car and useless without the other parts. Never had anyone break into my car while at a post office. Gotta imagine that the rate break-ins at post offices is lower than the average for any given area.
Part of being a responsible gun owner is not putting yourself at risk of a felony charge for bringing a gun into a federal building. Once you have a felony you don't get to carry any guns anywhere.
Heads up, watch out for bullet setback. Constantly rechambering the same rounds can push the bullet back into the casing slightly and increase pressures, it is generally advised to avoid doing this, but if you must, unload the entire mag and put that one on the bottom, so you aren't just unchambering/rechambering the same 2rnds over and over, thus decreasing the likelihood one will cause a catastrophic failure.
Also, by leaving the serialized lower in the car, it is still useful, as someone could easily break that window and take the regulated part, then overnight a complete slide to their house for ~$300*, including shipping, slap em together, and now they've bypassed a NICs check and got a pretty fucking good deal on a glock if you ignore that whole "getting caught with a stolen gun sucks" hidden cost. It really is more responsible to keep it holstered, it's just that the law forces irresponsibility.
*$300 is the quote for a complete glock slide. If not glock, still no NICs, just more money, like $500ish.
But why? When have you ever been in a post office and felt like you needed a firearm to defend yourself? Or the grocery store? Or any of the other places people are pushing to be able to intimidate people by wearing a firearm that immediately lets people know, "look out for me". I've never been to a place I felt like I needed to be armed, and if I did I would probably stop going there. Living in fear of everyone around you to the point you can't mail a package without your gun probably means you should be seeking some counseling, not a carry permit.
EDIT - Oops extra period.
Your comment pretends that concealed carry doesn't exist. I'd rework that section so you don't look like you missed an obvious counterpoint. While you are at it I'd avoid pretending that you know the motivation of someone carrying. If a person carries for a reason other than what you said it makes it very easy to discard your whole position and because of the way you phrased it not one person you are trying to reach will even begin to agree with your description of their motivation even if that is actually the reason they carry.
Must be nice to just decide not to go places. Not everyone has that luxury.
A lot of people who wear them on holsters could just forget, and it's unreasonable to punish people for something they have the right to carry on their person anyway.
I'm actually kind of with the right wing on this one. It is a stupid rule.
Intimidation? Maybe read what you are going to respond to. Who is being intimidated by a fully concealed firearm? And what I would give to be as blissfully unaware of my surroundings as you to believe that I could never be endangered by man or beast. You live in a dream. The world is dangerous.
Bad risk assessment. Most Americans are deeply confused about the things that are likely to kill them vs the things they actively worry about. Maybe that's not you, but statistically it almost certainly is.
Unless you are a young man in a concentrated poverty neighborhood, your chances of encountering deadly interpersonal violence are vanishingly small. You're far more likely to be killed by heart disease due to an unhealthy lifestyle, yet the vast majority (not all) of gun-owners pay little or no attention to that aspect of their personal well-being.
The need some people feel to carry a gun isn't rooted in accurate risk assessment and instead is about a desire to feel empowered or because like my old man --a Vietnam combat vet-- they have a blown-out fight or flight response so that everything looks like a threat even when it's not. (This is why so many Vietnam vets --again, like my old man-- ended up living off in the woods by themselves; that way they could be in control of their environment at all times which is also why they always carried firearms.)
But ultimately the real problem is that many people aren't honest with themselves about why they are so wedded to carrying.
When is the last time a man or beast attacked you? I mean that in all seriousness, I'm honestly curious with a reaction like that to someone that doesn't feel safe knowing everyone around them is just waiting to be some kind of Jason Bourne.
Last time. Beast: about 4 months ago. I live in a rural area plagued with feral hogs. I have been charged by them on multiple occasions. Shots get fired.
Ok fair enough, that I can agree with. I still don't know why anyone would need to be armed in the Post Office though.
Mostly just to not leave it in the car. Even a locked car really isn't that secure. On your person is the most secure location. I've had a window broken out and the radio stolen when I went to the mall. I've also been harassed at gas stations, and once was threatened with a knife for my keys. I did draw my pistol on him. He ran, it was over. I'm glad I had it on me. I hate that a firearm has just become part of my clothes. It's not fun. I'm not trying to be a hero. I damn sure wouldn't get it out in anger. If I shoot someone I will be going to jail, because that's standard procedure. Even if I'm determined to be in the right, it will probably take months to retrieve my firearm. The whole thing is a huge pain in the ass at best.
You sound like a very reasonable gun owner to me, sorry for the trouble. Just hope you can understand that from my point of view I know nothing about the other person with a gun. It could be the guy that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but sees himself as Dirty Harry just itching to pull his piece out and end a "lesser life". Who knows when he is firing off rounds like it's a movie who he might actually hit. That type of scenario I think is most people's worst fear when they see rulings like this.
If people had to take some kind of renewing mental health assessment, along with some kind of "I actually know how this thing works" assessment every couple of years I think that would also help ease minds. That being said, I think things like an AR-15 should be something that stays at a range (envision some kind of weapon holding/transfer program for moving them between ranges and/or from the dealer) as it has no practical real world application except death (but I'm sure they are fun to shoot).
You didn't bother me any. Lots of people out there behaving foolish. Georgia, I'm afraid, is an open carry state. Those are the ones I don't trust. Their holsters are always ill fitting, barely attached to thier owners. They never seem to be paying any kind of attention to their surroundings, but they all wear the same oddly forced looking scowl. And it's always some absolute canon of a pistol, too. And this is at, like, Walmart on Sunday. Those guys are trying to live an action movie. ARs get a bad rap, but I'm sure you aren't interested in my defense of the platform. It's just a rifle though. Not a particularly high powered one either.
I conceal carry where ever I can. It's not about "intimidating" people. No one around me knows I have a gun on me.
A lot of people carry a firearm for self protection, these are not the people you want to take guns away from. We just want to live our lives and not be the victims of any criminals with bad intentions.
I am alarmed and concerned by this ruling, but not really surprised.
lol
lmao
When we going to have a law banning possession of weaponry that relies on scientific or engineering knowledge or techniques for which there is no historic evidence of the writers of the 2nd amendment having known of or imagined. Let's get down with this "historical tradition" muck rolling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
Damn semi auto only? Well shucks, guess ill stick to the cannons that the founding fathers allowed private citizens to own and operate on privately owned warships. Sounds fun now that I think about it.
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/private-ships-of-war-an-economical-solution/
https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/exhibition/boom/
Literally nothing would prevent twelve year olds from stealing daddy's Galleon and cannoning up a few classrooms.
Skies the limit.
Surplus US Marine Corps AH-1W Super Cobra Attach Helocopters up for sale
How a Montana businessman built a Cobra attack helicopter from spare parts