I can never remember what court covers where, or if this ruling covers Utah, but it sure would be nice not to have to park across the street from the Post Office any more:
A federal judge has ruled that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates the Second Amendment in a case brought by an Avon man and a national gun rights group.
But Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said the Postal Service has a right to bar Tab Bonidy, who filed the lawsuit, from carrying his gun into the Post Office building itself.
Bonidy, who brought the suit along with the National Association for Gun Rights, in U.S. District Court in Denver, has a concealed carry permit and routinely carries a firearm.
...
In fact, he said, the ban is a violation of Bonidy's Second Amendment rights.
""The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy's liberty can be accommodated by modifying the regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to "have ready access to essential postal services" provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense."
There are good reasons for barring weapons within the postal building itself, Matsch said. "An individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purpose."
I can never remember what court covers where, or if this ruling covers Utah, but it sure would be nice not to have to park across the street from the Post Office any more:
A federal judge has ruled that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates the Second Amendment in a case brought by an Avon man and a national gun rights group.
But Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said the Postal Service has a right to bar Tab Bonidy, who filed the lawsuit, from carrying his gun into the Post Office building itself.
Bonidy, who brought the suit along with the National Association for Gun Rights, in U.S. District Court in Denver, has a concealed carry permit and routinely carries a firearm.
...
In fact, he said, the ban is a violation of Bonidy's Second Amendment rights.
""The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy's liberty can be accommodated by modifying the regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to "have ready access to essential postal services" provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense."
There are good reasons for barring weapons within the postal building itself, Matsch said. "An individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purpose."
There are good reasons for barring weapons within the postal building itself, Matsch said. "An individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purpose.
We should also ban all sharp objects, someone might get excited passions about them and start doing something bad with them.The post office has scissors, they should be locked up IMO.
You can bet that the USPS will appeal the ruling, especially since it conflicts with a ruling that was handed down last year by either the 4th or 5th circuit (I can't find it right now) court.
The 10th Circuit covers Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah.
Luckily? While it would be nice for the inside the building ban to be lifted as well, limiting the restriction to the building itself and not perimeter border as it currently stands is a good improvement. It'll be appealed but by the USPS not the guy. Hopefully the Circuit court will find the reasoning of the district court justice sound and uphold the ruling.
Remember a small improvement is better than no improvement.
The question I would like the judge to answer is this: If it is reasonable to restore this man's constitutional rights in the parking lot but maintain the restriction within the building, do not the reasons stated for maintaining the ban within the building, specifically, "the presence of an individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purposes." also hold true for the parking lot where his rights trump their policy?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Utah Guns Forum
232.4K posts
2.7K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to firearm owners and enthusiasts in Utah. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!