Suing the Post Office

[mrjam2jab]

Challenge firearm ban in PO

Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Challenge to Ban on Firearms on Postal Service Property
Attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation are taking on the US Postal Service's ban on any firearm on USPS property. The challenge is on behalf of Debbie and Tab Bonidy of Avon, Colorado and the National Association for Gun Rights. A lawsuit, Bonidy et al v. USPS et al, was filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Bonidys live in a rural area of Colorado that doesn't have home mail delivery. Because of that, the local post office in Avon, Colorado provides the residents of the area with a post office box at no charge. While they both have Colorado concealed carry permits and regularly carry, the Bonidys cannot carry concealed or openly when picking up their mail. They even can't leave their firearms locked in their car as this would violate 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). This regulation reads:

(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.

Violation of this regulation could subject them to a fine or imprisonment or both. Rather than risk this, they, through their attorney, requested that the USPS amend or repeal this provision as it was broader than other firearms restrictions on Federal property and because it went beyond what was allowed under the Heller decision.

In response to their letter, Mary Anne Gibbons, General Counsel for the USPS, informed the Bonidys that the USPS believed that it was on firm legal ground and that bringing firearms on Postal Service grounds would indeed violate 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). She said the Postal Service would be seeking the advice of the Justice Department on the issues raised on behalf of the Bonidys.

The lawsuit is seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Postal Service regulations on the grounds that:

By prohibiting Plaintiffs from possessing a functional firearm on real property under the charge and control of the USPS, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies that deprive Plaintiffs of the right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment.

In addition to the injunction, the plaintiffs are seeking costs, attorney fees, and any further relief that the Court may award.

In a parenthetical note, this is the first time that I am aware that the National Association for Gun Rights has been a party to any post-McDonald litigation. Due to their sensationalist "alerts" on Rep. Bobby Rush's HR 45 as a means of fund-raising, they have not been taken too seriously in the past. If this lawsuit marks a change in their direction, so much the better.
Posted by John Richardson at 9:17 PM
Labels: Bonidy et al v. USPS et al

[CenterTree]

Wow, good luck with that! I hope they win of course, but I am seriously doubtful of a win here.

What after that, courthouses, federal buildings?

The article didn't say if the suit is just for those who get no home delivery or if it is filed for anyone entering a PO.

[MrBi11]

OMG but what about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal




[/sarcasm]

[GunLawyer001]

I wish them well, but it could go either way, even after Heller and McDonald.

The problem is that a lot of Federal laws only apply on Federal property, which implicates the quandary of what the govt can do as law maker, contrasted with what it can do as a property owner. I think they can't act in violation of the Constitution here, even as land owners & managers. But the courts will give them a bit of latitude.

I could see the court allowing guns in the Post Office but not in the court houses. People going into court tend to be emotional. Half of them are losers. People who lose custody of their kids, or lose most of their belongings to the woman who cheated on them, or lose their case against the neighbor from hell, or watch the monster who molested their kid walk free...these people might be better left unarmed while on the premises. It's an arguable point.

But the same balancing test can't be made for people picking up their copy of TV Guide and the electric bill. Getting your mail, or shipping cookies to your college kids, is not something made more dangerous by the presence of a firearm. Under strict or intermediate scrutiny, the rights of the citizens should win.

[dc dalton]

The problem is that a lot of Federal laws only apply on Federal property, which implicates the quandary of what the govt can do as law maker, contrasted with what it can do as a property owner. I think they can't act in violation of the Constitution here, even as land owners & managers.

Ah but one thing you might not know (and I know because I had a client in the business) is that about 70% of post offices are NOT owned by the government. They are in fact leased from private property owners.

Met this customer about 2 years ago and was amazed at the information he had on the subject.

Same as a whole lot of PA liquor stores ... not owned by Pa. just leased.

[mrjam2jab]

Ah but one thing you might not know (and I know because I had a client in the business) is that about 70% of post offices are NOT owned by the government. They are in fact leased from private property owners.

Met this customer about 2 years ago and was amazed at the information he had on the subject.

Same as a whole lot of PA liquor stores ... not owned by Pa. just leased.

Maybe that 70% are those ones in strip shopping centers?

[GunLawyer001]

Ah but one thing you might not know (and I know because I had a client in the business) is that about 70% of post offices are NOT owned by the government. They are in fact leased from private property owners.

Met this customer about 2 years ago and was amazed at the information he had on the subject.

Same as a whole lot of PA liquor stores ... not owned by Pa. just leased.

Good to know, but as managers of the property they have the same power as if they held the title to the land.

[ungawa]

I could see the court allowing guns in the Post Office but not in the court houses. People going into court tend to be emotional. Half of them are losers.

A better fractional breakdown would be that 1/3 of the people are judges and lawyers and two thirds of the people want the minority in the room to be dead. Often with a sense or urgency. And the order of battle is far worse for routine court operations.

[Gun Bowanna]

This regulation reads:

(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.


Wait, isn't getting YOUR mail from YOUR PO-Box (the only place it CAN be delivered too) "Official Business"??

I think they may have a good chance at challenging this. The Official Business of the post office is the delivery and receiving of mail.

edit to add:

Hows anyone supposed to ship a rifle or such? it's concealed in a box...

[twoeggsup]

...Hows anyone supposed to ship a rifle or such? it's concealed in a box...

Oh that's easy.

Remove it from the package and just stand in the street waving it in the air yelling at the Post Office building...

Sooner or later someone will come to get it from you.