Is this valid now across the country?
Link Removed
The ruling is only valid "
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."
Seems to only apply to one person and one parking lot to me. The media is exaggerating the ruling in order to stir the anti-gun groups into strongly responding.
Link Removed
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."