SCOTUS Lets Post Office Gun Ban Stand

Status
Not open for further replies.
alsaqr

alsaqr

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
4,990
Location
South Western, OK
The US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling upholding a ban on guns in US Post Office buildings and parking lots.

The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.
Click to expand...


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-rejects-appeal-ban-guns-post-offices-37810287
 
It's important to remember that there is a difference between a Supreme Court ruling and the Supreme Court not hearing a case.

SCOTUS only hears 1 out of 100 cases brought before them. It doesn't necessarily mean that they think the lower court ruling is right, just that something else is more important to resolve this year.
 
Unfortunate. I understand (Not agree) with the “No guns” inside the PO, but the parking lot is the problem. A lot of POs are standalone facilities in locations where there is nowhere else to park and leave your firearm.
 
Some PO are in a shopping center with a public parking lot for all the stores. That could pose a problem.
 
V-fib,

Actually it is a big deal even, especially, in rural areas.

I have two small towns near me with populations of about 800 & 1500 respectively.

The smallest town the P.O is on Main Street in a old building. All parking is done on the street so there is not a issue. The drive-up mailbox is at a different location.

The larger town as a recently built stand alone P.O. with it's own parking lot. The drive-up mailbox can only be used by driving into the P.O. parking lot.

We had to fight hard to save our P.O. in the smaller town a while back. We go out of way to buy stamps and send mail through it.
 
V-fib said:
It's not a big deal. I live in a very rural area with a one room post office and carry whenever I drop off and pickup mail etc. and technically its not illegal if you have a valid cpl. see article:

https://rlwesquire.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/question-about-concealed-carry-in-a-post-office/

v-fib
Click to expand...


That article is wrong and they are referencing the wrong statute.

The correct statute is 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l )

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
Click to expand...

Picking up your mail in not 'official purposes'

Tenth Circuit affirmed the application of 39 CFR 232.1(l) prohibit even the otherwise lawful possession of a gun in a Post Office parking lot (Bonidy v. Unite States Postal Service (10th Circuit, Nos. 13-1374, 13-1391, 2015)

www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-1374.pdf


ETA: The ruling by the 10th is the same ruling that SCOTUS just refused to hear.

The case is based on 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l ); not the 930 statute in your article.

You can bet that if it made it to SCOTUS for consideration, the 232 statute is correct; not the statue in the article you linked.
 
Last edited:
So with my CCW in AZ, I can park in a school parking lot, and leave my firearm, but not at the postoffice! :banghead:
 
danez71 said:
...The correct statute is 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)...
Click to expand...
Just a point of clarification. 39 CFR 232.1 isn't a statute (enacted by Congress). It's a regulation (promulgated pursuant to statutory authority).

The "CFR" is the "Code of Federal Regulations." That's where one finds the regulations promulgated by federal agencies. Federal statutes are found in the United States Code (U. S. C. or USC).

In one sense it doesn't matter since a regulation within the authority of an agency as conferred by an act of Congress, properly adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, and otherwise lawful, has the force of law. But still, when dealing with legal issues precision is important to avoiding misunderstandings.
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
Just a point of clarification. 39 CFR 232.1 isn't a statute (enacted by Congress). It's a regulation (promulgated pursuant to statutory authority).

The "CFR" is the "Code of Federal Regulations." That's where one finds the regulations promulgated by federal agencies. Federal statutes are found in the United States Code (U. S. C. or USC).

In one sense it doesn't matter since a regulation within the authority of an agency as conferred by an act of Congress, properly adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, and otherwise lawful, has the force of law. But still, when dealing with legal issues precision is important to avoiding misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

Yep. Thanks for pointing that out.

I screwed that up throughout my whole post :eek: I'm going to use the excuse of the pain med I'll be on for a while :(


At least I got the CFR right and even cited legit references. ;)
 
Frank Ettin said:
Just a point of clarification. 39 CFR 232.1 isn't a statute (enacted by Congress). It's a regulation (promulgated pursuant to statutory authority).



The "CFR" is the "Code of Federal Regulations." That's where one finds the regulations promulgated by federal agencies. Federal statutes are found in the United States Code (U. S. C. or USC).



In one sense it doesn't matter since a regulation within the authority of an agency as conferred by an act of Congress, properly adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, and otherwise lawful, has the force of law. But still, when dealing with legal issues precision is important to avoiding misunderstandings.
Click to expand...


I'll offer one very, very minor correction to Frank's good point: it's the Administrative Procedure Act, not Procedures. I'll put it down to bad autocorrect. Otherwise, Frank is spot on as always.
 
Our side won in Heller '08 and McDonald '10 because we had the right complaintants under clear circumstances demonstrating that the gun bans in D.C. and Chicago violated their rights and served no public safety purpose in doing so.

Our side "lost" in Miller '39 because Miller was a moonshiner who took a sawed-off shotgun across state lines supporting a criminal enterprise, by the time SCOTUS heard Miller's case, he was dead and his lawyer did not appear; the court heard only the government's side, no counter arguments, and ruled accordingly in Miller '39.

A Supreme Court ruling with the wrong complaintant under the wrong set of circumstances can be disasterous (that's how the antis feel about Heller and McDonald BTW and they have vowed to overturn those progun decisions asap.)

Our side is helped by good clear cases.

BTW. The Maryland and New York ballistic fingerprint database programs (and the Canadian long gun registry) were done away with recently not because of court rulings on constitutionality, but by constantly pointing out that those programs did not enhance public safety, were based on mistaken premises, and took money way from programs that could enhance public safety. It did not matter to the supporters of gun control that these programs were possibly unconstitutional: what mattered to them was it made them think it was doing good and if it was unconstitutional they would change the constitution to allow it. When it became obvious these programs were flawed and not working, support evaporated. Winning on the constitution is nice: it was necessary to end reformist demagogue programs like the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, but a lot of bad law is perfectly constitutional.
 
Last edited:
Our side won in Heller '08 and McDonald '10 because we had the right complaintants under clear circumstances demonstrating that the gun bans in D.C. and Chicago violated their rights and served no public safety purpose in doing so.

Our side "lost" in Miller '39 because Miller was a moonshiner who took a sawed-off shotgun across state lines supporting a criminal enterprise, by the time SCOTUS heard Miller's case, he was dead and his lawyer did not appear; the court heard only the government's side, no counter arguments, and ruled accordingly in Miller '39.

A Supreme Court ruling with the wrong complaintant under the wrong set of circumstances can be disasterous (that's how the antis feel about Heller and McDonald BTW and they have vowed to overturn those progun decisions asap.)

Our side is helped by good clear cases.

BTW. The Maryland and New York ballistic fingerprint database programs (and the Canadian long gun registry) were done away with recently not because of court rulings on constitutionality, but by constantly pointing out that those programs did not enhance public safety, were based on mistaken premises, and took money way from programs that could enhance public safety. It did not matter to the supporters of gun control that these programs were possibly unconstitutional: what mattered to them was it made them think it was doing good and if it was unconstitutional they would change the constitution to allow it. When it became obvious these programs were flawed and not working, support evaporated. Winning on the constitution is nice: it was necessary to end reformist demagogue programs like the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, but a lot of bad law is perfectly constitutional.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. Some interesting points in there.
 
Peter Gun said:
Isn't that still a problem with the federal law about school zones?
Click to expand...
I have wondered about that as well. Does the law allow one to legally leave a gun inside their car in a school parking lot if they have a CCDW, or is leaving a gun inside the car OK for anyone who visits the school?

Or is there no exemption for non-LEO?
 
Elkins45 said:
I have wondered about that as well. Does the law allow one to legally leave a gun inside their car in a school parking lot if they have a CCDW, or is leaving a gun inside the car OK for anyone who visits the school?

Or is there no exemption for non-LEO?
Click to expand...

YoMama indicated AZ as the location.

The following is info for AZ
I have a CCW permit. Can I carry my handgun on school grounds while picking up my child?
Conditionally. If you remain in your vehicle and the handgun is unloaded before entering school grounds, yes. If you have to exit your vehicle while picking up your child, the handgun must be unloaded (as above) and secured (locked) within the vehicle out of plain view. Use caution if you must exit the vehicle with a handgun (or any weapon) to secure it in the trunk of your vehicle. Others may see you and not understand your intention.
Additionally, designated employees of a school may order a person off of school property if that person is believed to be interfering with school operations.

School boards may also enact specific and more restrictive rules governing firearms and deadly weapons on school grounds.

Determine what the rules of a school are before attempting to enter school grounds with a firearm.

(ARS 13-3102.A.12, 13-3102.I and ARS 13-2911)

http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/Questions/
Click to expand...

It's a step in the right direction but having to fiddle with your gun in the car to unload it, imo, adds risks than just leaving the gun alone when dropping off you kid.

But since it applies to school property, I suppose dropping your kid off across the street wouldn't require unloading. Caution: I did not research the 1000ft rule part of the law in AZ with CCW permit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Federal Appeals Court Mull Guns in Post Offices
Replies
4
Views
810
tmoore912
T
dweis
  • Locked
SCOTUS leaves Bump Stock ban in place
Replies
1
Views
380
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
U
  • Locked
SCOTUS to hear Mainers’ appeal on gun ban for domestic violence conviction
Replies
5
Views
709
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
S
  • Locked
SCOTUS: Court Rejects Gunmakers' Appeal
Replies
11
Views
867
Hkmp5sd
H
A
  • Locked
SCOTUS declines assault weapons ban case - how bad is this?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
Red Wind
Red Wind
Back
Top