CCW in the post office?

[telpinaro]

Thank you for the link! The text of the ruling won't come up for me out here at sea, but gives me a start for searching!

I'd copy and paste, but it's 11 pages... And I'd try downloading and attaching, but I remember those at-sea connections!

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's the actual ruling:

Link Removed

OK. Got the ruling from here:
Link Removed

Now, here's the problem. The ruling does not strike down the firearms ban in Post Office Parking lots. In fact, the ruling says:
"FURTHER ORDERED, that the other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. §232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied."

What the ruling ordered was very specific and limited only to the plaintiff and only to the single parking lot in question:
"ORDERED, that the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab
Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm
authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed
manner"

Notice the ruling is limited to one specific individual and one specific parking lot. Does the court order improve our chances of future wins? It most certainly does. HOWEVER, the court order does nothing to negate the prohibition for any other person at any other location, it merely provides a precedent for the next person to sue the Post Office and win.

I did like this in the ruling, very much:
"In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the
Second Amendment."

 

[telpinaro]

Notice the ruling is limited to one specific individual and one specific parking lot. Does the court order improve our chances of future wins? It most certainly does. HOWEVER, the court order does nothing to negate the prohibition for any other person at any other location, it merely provides a precedent for the next person to sue the Post Office and win.

I did like this in the ruling, very much:
"In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the
Second Amendment."

That was my take, too... I was just hoping for someone to confirm it before I said anything (I know, sounds like a cop-out, but it's what I do when I'm not 100% sure on something).

I do find it encouraging, and I do think it's a good stepping stone, and possibly legal recourse in case someone gets arrested for having a gun in the parking lot (depends on circumstances, of course). I'm not out to get arrested, since I need to be home at my normal time for my kid. However, if I have to go to the post office among other errands, I'll feel better about parking at the Guadalajara's even though the parking lot is technically shared with the post office (very long parking lot... part of a strip mall).

I also liked the "And while patrons may reasonably expect that the Postal Service will take measures to keep the parking lot safe, that expectation is less compelling than the expectation of safety inside the building, where the USPS does business and exercises greater control." That seems to imply that if the post office wants to ban guns, they are responsible for our safety. They also specifically mentioned that there was no access control to this parking lot, and that parking lot robberies are not uncommon. Having that expanded in other laws would be good! Can you imagine all these companies with "no gun" signs being legally responsible for our safety? They might have insurance against robbery, but a lawsuit from everyone present for endangering their lives would be much more expensive.

Sure, I'm reaching a bit... but so are the anti-gunners. If they expect to take away my ability to defend myself, they'd better expect to pay for it. They've got their free health care (sort of), so why not free bodyguards for everyone? :wink:

 

[Gatherer]

I'm glad to see those post's involving carry on P.O. property. Thanks!