A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.
The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.
I want to open carry an ar15 in an MRI room. If you prohibit that, you are violating my constitutional rights!
If you say that there are exceptions to those rights the I think we have a crack that we need to rip open juuuuust a little wider.
I love how open carry was banned in California by Republican legislation and the law was signed by fucking none other than conservative golden calf, Ronald Reagan.
And why? Because the Black Panthers were making white people nervous.
There’s no moral or logical consistency until you realize everything they do is self serving and any given stance is subject to change whenever convenient.
This is a ridiculous ruling, but the reason the ban on guns in post offices makes many gun owners so angry is that unlike pretty much any other no-gun zone laws, it includes all of the property, including the parking lot.
So if a licensed person removes their gun and leaves it in the car so they can go into the post office, they’ve still committed a felony by parking there.
So instead they’ll park in the street. And if the lot is mostly empty and there’s a car parked in the street in front of the post office, it’s a bright neon sign to thieves that breaking into that car will score them a gun.
Turns out there’s a surprisingly simple way to avoid that whole situation…
Some people are required to carry firearms. If your job is armed security, you shouldn’t have a potential felony charge for going to the post office after work and dropping a letter in the night drop with your gun locked in the car.
Just have federal buildings follow the laws of the states they’re in regarding the definition of premises for firearms. That is - apply it to the buildings, but not to the cars in the parking lot.
You shouldnt take the gun you use for work home. That would solve it.
What’s a more secure place for a firearm? Unattended in a locker or actively in the possession of the person licensed to have it?
Locker 100%
How so? Where do you keep your wallet? How about your keys?
The most secure place to store something isn’t to leave it unattended. It’s to actively have it on your person.
Do you take everything valuable from your house and your car with you from wherever you go? Or do you just lock them up and leave them unattended? Lol
The most secure place to keep something is to leave it locked up in a safe place. A person can get robbed…even if they have a gun, lol
I need a gun when I go to the post office to protect myself from the postal workers when they decide to go postal.
Similarly, going postal is back on the table!
The case was literally about a postal worker… I was flabbergasted haha.
Cool, so the place that mass shootings in the US began, and coined its own phrase, now must allow armed nut jobs inside. What could go wrong!?
Quite literally all but 1 came after the 1972 ban.
Also yet another bootlicking judge leaving the guy charged with nothing but resisting arrest.
The USPS has been abused by DeJoy, another trump appointee, who filled the fleet with more gas vehicles with less efficiency than previous models. That and removing public mail boxes for “reasons that totally didn’t have to do with mail-in voting helping Democrats win elections, promise.”
Florida is such a shit hole.
You know what else is public? Courthouses.
lol
lmao
Be interesting to see how the appeal goes. It’s going to take a while to thin out those Trump judges.
When we going to have a law banning possession of weaponry that relies on scientific or engineering knowledge or techniques for which there is no historic evidence of the writers of the 2nd amendment having known of or imagined. Let’s get down with this “historical tradition” muck rolling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
Damn semi auto only? Well shucks, guess ill stick to the cannons that the founding fathers allowed private citizens to own and operate on privately owned warships. Sounds fun now that I think about it.
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/private-ships-of-war-an-economical-solution/
https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/exhibition/boom/
this investigation is a huge waste of resources
So anyone surprised by this ruling must believe that folks, licensed and legally carrying, are disarming and leaving their shit in the car to go into specific buildings. That’s stupid. All that does is leave a gun one broken window away from someone already committing crimes who in the excitement of finding a weapon might suddenly graduate to doing much worse crimes. Keeping your piece on your person, holstered and concealed is the only responsible approach if you are going to carry.
So anyone surprised by this ruling
I am alarmed and concerned by this ruling, but not really surprised.
But why? When have you ever been in a post office and felt like you needed a firearm to defend yourself? Or the grocery store? Or any of the other places people are pushing to be able to intimidate people by wearing a firearm that immediately lets people know, “look out for me”. I’ve never been to a place I felt like I needed to be armed, and if I did I would probably stop going there. Living in fear of everyone around you to the point you can’t mail a package without your gun probably means you should be seeking some counseling, not a carry permit.
EDIT - Oops extra period.
A lot of people who wear them on holsters could just forget, and it’s unreasonable to punish people for something they have the right to carry on their person anyway.
I’m actually kind of with the right wing on this one. It is a stupid rule.
Intimidation? Maybe read what you are going to respond to. Who is being intimidated by a fully concealed firearm? And what I would give to be as blissfully unaware of my surroundings as you to believe that I could never be endangered by man or beast. You live in a dream. The world is dangerous.
Bad risk assessment. Most Americans are deeply confused about the things that are likely to kill them vs the things they actively worry about. Maybe that’s not you, but statistically it almost certainly is.
Unless you are a young man in a concentrated poverty neighborhood, your chances of encountering deadly interpersonal violence are vanishingly small. You’re far more likely to be killed by heart disease due to an unhealthy lifestyle, yet the vast majority (not all) of gun-owners pay little or no attention to that aspect of their personal well-being.
The need some people feel to carry a gun isn’t rooted in accurate risk assessment and instead is about a desire to feel empowered or because like my old man --a Vietnam combat vet-- they have a blown-out fight or flight response so that everything looks like a threat even when it’s not. (This is why so many Vietnam vets --again, like my old man-- ended up living off in the woods by themselves; that way they could be in control of their environment at all times which is also why they always carried firearms.)
But ultimately the real problem is that many people aren’t honest with themselves about why they are so wedded to carrying.
When is the last time a man or beast attacked you? I mean that in all seriousness, I’m honestly curious with a reaction like that to someone that doesn’t feel safe knowing everyone around them is just waiting to be some kind of Jason Bourne.
Last time. Beast: about 4 months ago. I live in a rural area plagued with feral hogs. I have been charged by them on multiple occasions. Shots get fired.
Ok fair enough, that I can agree with. I still don’t know why anyone would need to be armed in the Post Office though.
Mostly just to not leave it in the car. Even a locked car really isn’t that secure. On your person is the most secure location. I’ve had a window broken out and the radio stolen when I went to the mall. I’ve also been harassed at gas stations, and once was threatened with a knife for my keys. I did draw my pistol on him. He ran, it was over. I’m glad I had it on me. I hate that a firearm has just become part of my clothes. It’s not fun. I’m not trying to be a hero. I damn sure wouldn’t get it out in anger. If I shoot someone I will be going to jail, because that’s standard procedure. Even if I’m determined to be in the right, it will probably take months to retrieve my firearm. The whole thing is a huge pain in the ass at best.
You sound like a very reasonable gun owner to me, sorry for the trouble. Just hope you can understand that from my point of view I know nothing about the other person with a gun. It could be the guy that couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn, but sees himself as Dirty Harry just itching to pull his piece out and end a “lesser life”. Who knows when he is firing off rounds like it’s a movie who he might actually hit. That type of scenario I think is most people’s worst fear when they see rulings like this.
If people had to take some kind of renewing mental health assessment, along with some kind of “I actually know how this thing works” assessment every couple of years I think that would also help ease minds. That being said, I think things like an AR-15 should be something that stays at a range (envision some kind of weapon holding/transfer program for moving them between ranges and/or from the dealer) as it has no practical real world application except death (but I’m sure they are fun to shoot).
I conceal carry where ever I can. It’s not about “intimidating” people. No one around me knows I have a gun on me.
A lot of people carry a firearm for self protection, these are not the people you want to take guns away from. We just want to live our lives and not be the victims of any criminals with bad intentions.
Or the grocery store?
On my feed rn there is an article about a kid who shot up a grocery store possibly getting the death penalty, so this is actually a pretty good example. “Yes.”
to be able to intimidate people by wearing a firearm that immediately lets people know, “look out for me”.
Concealed carry. Open carry is antiquated, it comes from the idea that since everyone carried back in the day that only a criminal intent on victimizing another would conceal their arms. This is obviously patently stupid to assume, and now proponents of open carry like to tout that it intimidates those that would otherwise wish to victimize them. In reality it just makes them a target. But the way the laws are set up in most states, it is legal to carry concealed with a permit, and legal to carry openly without one, frankly I think that should be reversed, but it is the actual reason most people who open carry choose to do so. Their supposed reasoning that “it intimidates would be attackers” is just a justification because “I don’t wanna get a permit” sounds less convincing.
I’ve never been to a place I felt like I needed to be armed, and if I did I would probably stop going there.
Well, I can tell you live in a good neighborhood. Unfortunately many people in the world are in a less financially stable situation and are forced to be in areas that aren’t exactly safe, like their local neighborhood grocery store, gas station, park, street, apartment, etc. I’m sure they’d love to live in a gated community, but $500 for a glock and another $100 for a stack of 9mm is a lot cheaper.
Living in fear of everyone around you to the point you can’t mail a package without your gun probably means you should be seeking some counseling, not a carry permit.
I carry a pocket knife to cut open boxes, snip errant strings from shirt’s armpits, etc. To do that, I have to have the knife on me when I encounter the box or feel/notice the string. I carry the gun to defend myself from guys with knives or guns who are attempting to use them to kill me or someone near me, to do that, I have to have the gun on me when the guy with a knife decides to victimize me. Can’t use what you don’t have.
I also have a leatherman in my backpack I use all the time, I never feel like I need pliers in the grocery store either, but I didn’t spawn in the grocery store, there’s a whole world outside of it, and again grocery stores have been the target of criminals before.
Now do courthouses and see how well that goes.
Restrictions on carry in court houses would likely pass the Bruen test.
Well yeah, the Courts make up rules and tests to advance whatever agenda is on the docket. They work backwards from the result they want.
Bunch of scared insecure children on the right. Recommend a listen to Malcolm Gladwell 6 part series on gun violence for the history of the rights obsession with 2A.
I wonder how the court would respond to a petition to allow firearms in court rooms. It’s a god-given American freedom, guaranteed by the second amendment right?
It would respond that there are valid reasons not to allow guns in courthouses, which is true.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that’s debatable. There certainly were when sending money was a thing but now, I think I agree with the court now. I wouldn’t strongly disagree with keeping the ban either though.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that’s debatable
All it takes is one guy with a gun that’s pissed off about a lost package.
That’s true literally everywhere. Pissed at cashier at McDonald’s, pissed at a driver on the street, …
Maybe don’t give guns to people with anger issues.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that’s debatable.
All it takes is one guy with a gun that’s pissed off about a lost package.
That’s true literally everywhere.
Yep, including Post Offices.
We should make sure it’s also unconstitutional to block guns at:
- Courthouses
- GOP conventions
- Political rallies
- NRA conventions
