• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Post office parking lot carry - Federal Judge ruling

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,281
Location
Montana
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23634504/federal-judge-post-office-violated-mans-rights-by#ixzz2YgUC9FoS

----------------------------------

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.

....


""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."
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,332
Location
Okanogan Highland
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23634504/federal-judge-post-office-violated-mans-rights-by#ixzz2YgUC9FoS

----------------------------------

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.

....


""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."
Unfortunately, this Judge has bought into the idea that an openly carried weapon is a "danger" to public safety. We, OC'rs need to get this judge, and the general population to understand that is just not the case.
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,053
Location
Lawton, OK USA
I love how the press always point out "Mr. Smith, who has a concealed weapon permit". What does the CPL have to do with the story?
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Someone should have asked the judge during the case for a declaratory judgment on whether a business that excludes firearms carry takes on any liability in the event of a person so disarmed being shot in a robbery or mass shooting while disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Someone should have asked the judge during the case for a declaratory judgment on whether a business that excludes firearms carry takes on any liability in the event of a person so disarmed being shot in a robbery or mass shooting while disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
That's right, if a business doesn't agree with us then the state should pass laws and force them to comply, great idea Comrade ill submit to the Commissar
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
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."
Does the Judge not know the origin of the phrase going postal? I would like to be able to defend myself when a Postal Worker can't handle the stress of their $18/hour job with full benefits and pension.

In my neck of the woods, there are a lot of ESL postal workers who probably are the hoplophobes the judge refers to. Regardless, presence of a gun should not induce panic nor alarm.

On a lighter note, guns do excite passions... we all know this. :lol::lol:
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
"In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. "

http://www.scribd.com/doc/152776706/MSJ-Order
now since this federal judge has ruled the second amendment protects a general right to open carry, is this the same Judicial district as Denver? if so can this ruling be used to challenge Denver's open carry ban?
 

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,873
Location
, ,
OC activists cheer federal judge’s Colorado ruling


Open Carry activists across the country, including the Pacific Northwest, are cheering a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that declared a ban on guns in post office parking lots to be unconstitutional, and they will likely be talking about it today at an Open Carry picnic the Kitsap County park in Port Orchard.


http://www.examiner.com/article/oc-activists-cheer-federal-judge-s-colorado-ruling
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Does the Judge not know the origin of the phrase going postal? I would like to be able to defend myself when a Postal Worker can't handle the stress of their $18/hour job with full benefits and pension.

In my neck of the woods, there are a lot of ESL postal workers who probably are the hoplophobes the judge refers to. Regardless, presence of a gun should not induce panic nor alarm.

On a lighter note, guns do excite passions... we all know this. :lol::lol:
lol ... what PO does this judge visit? I want to party with that guy, thinking a PO excites folks.

Likely would be disappointed ... bingo nite is not the great "crazy pandemonium" that this judge thinks it is.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
That's right, if a business doesn't agree with us then the state should pass laws and force them to comply, great idea Comrade ill submit to the Commissar
And what of my private property rights to my own body, the insides of my pockets, and whatever pieces of my private property I choose to put in them?

The fact that I step onto land you own does not strip me of any of my own rights to what I own.

The government exists to (among other things) enforce things like that. This is not a new function.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
And what of my private property rights to my own body, the insides of my pockets, and whatever pieces of my private property I choose to put in them?

The fact that I step onto land you own does not strip me of any of my own rights to what I own.

The government exists to (among other things) enforce things like that. This is not a new function.
All rights are property rights, including the the natural law theory we founded this country on that you have property within your own being. Your property with in your own being does not trump my property rights. So you still retain all your rights you just are not allowed to exercise them on my property against my wishes, you have the choice not to be on my property. You do not have the right to be on someone else's property engaging in any activity or right they don't want.
 
Last edited:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
All rights are property rights, including the the natural law theory we founded this country on that you have property within your own being. Your property with in your own being does not trump my property rights. So you still retain all your rights you just are not allowed to exercise them on my property against my wishes, you have the choice not to be on my property. You do not have the right to be on someone else's property engaging in any activity or right they don't want.
And likewise, your property rights do not trump my property rights to put what I want in my pockets.
 
Top