Supreme Court declines to hear appeal over ban on guns on Post Office property

Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
994
Likes
346
Location
Massachusetts
Feedback: 9 / 0 / 0
Monday decision, http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/supreme-court-no-guns-in-post-offices/.

Supreme Court: No Guns In Post Offices

sexy-e1421878061809-200x150.jpg
Casey Harper

1:09 PM 03/21/2016


16103337050_2693432f49_k-e1458579120406.jpg
Gun Club (Credit: Peretz Partensky/Flickr, no changes made) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifl/16103337050/

The Supreme Court decided Monday to let the federal ban on guns in post offices stand.
Tab Bonidy, a licensed Colorado gun owner, sued to protest the federal law banning guns on post office property, but a federal appellate court ruled in favor of the ban in June, 2015. The Supreme Court decided Monday it would not take up the case, which allows the appellate court’s decision and the gun ban to stand, The Associated Press reports.

Bonidy’s post office in Avon doesn’t deliver to homes, so he has to go pick up his mail at the post office. He is licensed to carry a gun for self defense. Bonidy argued he should be able to bring the gun into the post office, or at least store it in the parking lot outside while he went in to get his mail. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to federal buildings, though one justice dissented and took Bonidy’s side on the parking lot ban.

The court’s opinion cited a sentence from District of Columbia v. Heller, a case where the Supreme Court in 2008 upheld the right to have a gun for self-defense. The court pointed to one sentence in the key ruling, which says, “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial side of arms.” The post office and its parking lot are considered one of those “sensitive places.”

Bonidy appealed to the Supreme Court to no avail.

The Supreme Court in December declined to rule on a Chicago suburb’s ban on semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines. A federal appellate court ruled in February that Maryland’s similar gun control law was unconstitutional. The case has a good chance of going before the Supreme Court.

Send tips to [email protected]. Follow Casey on Twitter and like him on Facebook.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/supreme-court-no-guns-in-post-offices/#ixzz43d8iChq0










 
Last edited:
It just kills me that, when I am picking up my son at pre-school, and a flood of defenseless children come out, that I can't carry a firearm to protect my son and others. It's the most sensitive and important place for a good guy to have a gun. The logic behind that ban blows my mind.
 
It just kills me that, when I am picking up my son at pre-school, and a flood of defenseless children come out, that I can't carry a firearm to protect my son and others. It's the most sensitive and important place for a good guy to have a gun. The logic behind that ban blows my mind.

It's just liberal logic at work: if you make a place a gun-free zone, then no one will bring guns there, because to do would be illegal.[rolleyes]
 
They should start passing a law about having no cancer in the lung or pancreas, to stop those dangerous cancers from showing up in sensitive places. Then they can move on later to more general bans on cancer cells in the body.
 
It just kills me that, when I am picking up my son at pre-school, and a flood of defenseless children come out, that I can't carry a firearm to protect my son and others. It's the most sensitive and important place for a good guy to have a gun. The logic behind that ban blows my mind.
Don't worry, the important people are exempt.
 
Here we see SCOTUS choosing not to be consistent with previous rulings by not granting cert. How can we have justice?

Only by electing people that defend the COTUS and nominate and confirm judges that defend COTUS.

Until then, we have this crap and are a 'nation of men', not a 'nation of laws'.
 
The real hassle is you cannot even enter the parking lot of a post office with a firearm in your car.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-postoffice-guns-decision-idUSL1N0ZC2QF20150626

What if it's one of those post offices that's co-located with other businesses as part of a strip mall??? My guess is that the parking lot in those cases is NOT federal property.

It's always killed me that property that as a tax payer I'm part-owner of, is off limits to self-defense. If anything, federal property should be near the top of the list of locations where the tools of self defense should always be welcome, if not actively encouraged.
 
Like every other Government Agency, the Post Office follows of lead of he who signs the checks.

A new President could overturn this in a heartbeat.
 
The law is to protect them from themselves. You know... going postal.


I read somewhere that It's only illegal if you get caught or was it concealed means concealed. I'm confused. [rolleyes]
 
The real hassle is you cannot even enter the parking lot of a post office with a firearm in your car.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-postoffice-guns-decision-idUSL1N0ZC2QF20150626
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-postoffice-guns-decision-idUSL1N0ZC2QF20150626[/QUOTE I stopped going to the post office, I buy stamps at the courtesy booth at Market Basket and I use the mail boxes in a strip mall. I know concealed means concealed but I'm not risking a lifetime ban and a huge legal bill just to mail a letter.....
 
[/URL] I stopped going to the post office, I buy stamps at the courtesy booth at Market Basket and I use the mail boxes in a strip mall. I know concealed means concealed but I'm not risking a lifetime ban and a huge legal bill just to mail a letter.....

I just send my wife, she enjoys buying stamps for some bizarre reason.
 
It's just liberal logic at work: if you make a place a gun-free zone, then no one will bring guns there, because to do would be illegal.[rolleyes]

Liberals don't think gun-free zones deter criminals, they do it cause they don't like armed civilians and think you'll accidentally shoot a kid, or somehow go unhinged and start shooting the moment you step foot in a school or federal building.
 
What was unfortunate was a federal decision that decided that the law which says "except for lawful purposes" specifically does not include licensed concealed carry because interpreting the law thusly would give it very little prohibitive power. (The decision did not even get into the issue of constitutional carry). The court held that the "lawful purposes" was only intended to cover things like legal hunting in which the hunter may walk on postal land.

Denial of cert is an example of how Scotus chose the Cetaeno case to make a statement "we will respect Heller/McDonald" without actually doing anything to enforce gun rights in a positive manner. It's just a big decoy so that someone other than a right wing Scallian can get confirmed.
 
What was unfortunate was a federal decision that decided that the law which says "except for lawful purposes" specifically does not include licensed concealed carry because interpreting the law thusly would give it very little prohibitive power. (The decision did not even get into the issue of constitutional carry). The court held that the "lawful purposes" was only intended to cover things like legal hunting in which the hunter may walk on postal land.

Denial of cert is an example of how Scotus chose the Cetaeno case to make a statement "we will respect Heller/McDonald" without actually doing anything to enforce gun rights in a positive manner. It's just a big decoy so that someone other than a right wing Scallian can get confirmed.
This could be raised in another region for a circuit split, right?
 
SCOTUS yet again shows us how irrelevant it is. What decisions they make are so meek and narrow, they border on meaningless.

McDonald and Heller rulings are 99% on paper wins only. In practice nothing has changed.
 
This could be raised in another region for a circuit split, right?
While not precedent setting, federal courts do take note of what has been decided in other jurisdictions and often follow the guidance - which is why attorneys cite precedents from other districts that are not binding (for example, we had "guidance" from two other districts when we filed Fletcher v. Haas).

Supreme cert would be unlikely since the court has shown a near total reluctance to accept any cases that build on Heller gun rights in any meaningful way. Cateano was a decoy that showed symbolic support without actually helping anyone get their hands on those icky gun things.

In other words, we are still screwed.
 
Back
Top Bottom