Lawsuit Filed Against Post Office Gun Ban

[5711-Marine]

Colorado -–(Ammoland.com)- If there’s anything that makes a concealed carry permit holder upset, its criminal safezones.

A criminal safezone is where only criminals are safe, because armed self defense is banned. That’s why the National Association for Gun Rights has filed a lawsuit against the United State Postal Service.

The U.S. Postal Service uses bureaucratic rules to ban your right to carry in a Post Office, and that’s important, even if you don’t carry concealed –- it’s the camel’s nose under the tent.

You see, the U.S. Postal Service claims citizens don’t have the right to self defense in Post Offices.

There’s one problem with that claim: it isn’t true.

The law cited by the Post Office creates an exception for “lawful carrying of firearms” for “other lawful purposes.” On top of that, both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions guarantee “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

Sounds like it should be simple, right?

Well, no government bureaucracy ever gave up power without a fight.

And, given the anti-gun nature of the Obama administration, we know they aren’t going to instruct the Postal service properly.

So I assumed you’d want your organization to act… and quickly.

Do you support this lawsuit on behalf of law-abiding citizens for their self defense?

I sincerely hope so. I know, personally, it infuriates me to be disarmed just because I’m picking up my mail.

But imagine how Debbie Bonidy feels. Debbie and Tab Bonidy live in the mountains of Colorado, and are the plaintiffs –- along with the National Association for Gun Rights –- against the Postal Service.

Debbie Bonidy doesn’t like going anywhere without her personal handgun, which is why she went through the trouble of being trained, proving she’s law-abiding, and getting her concealed carry permit. Not only does the U.S. Postal Service say she can’t carry that handgun for self protection in a Post Office, but they arrogantly claim she can’t even leave it in her car when in their lot.

If we win this lawsuit, that outrageous policy will change in every Post Office in America.

For Freedom,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

P.S. I hope you will support our lawsuit against the Postal Services’ ban on self-defense.

We’ve already filed the suit against the Post Office, and if we win, they’ll be forced to allow legally authorized citizens to carry in Post Offices across the country.

About:
The National Association for Gun Rights was founded in 2001 to serve as a grassroots gun rights group focusing on building state-level gun rights groups and lobbying for pro-gun federal legislation. Brown has been a gun lobbyist for more than 17 years. Visit: www.nationalgunrights.org

[JohnXD]

Interesting, I thought that the law banned possession of firearms in all federal buildings, not just the post offices. If that's the case, then the lawsuit may be miss-directed. If not, then please disregard my post.

[GunLawyer001]

. . .
The law cited by the Post Office creates an exception for “lawful carrying of firearms” for “other lawful purposes.” . . .

I hope that two things are true:

That this organization that I never heard of before, which is begging for free money from gun owners, is legitimate.

And that their attorneys have a better understanding of the applicable rules and regulations than is possessed by the person who wrote the sentence I copied above, the "Executive Director" of the organization begging for money. He's mixing bits from different places.

A very lucid discussion can be found here:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conce...rude-awakening

[Big Chuck]

And, given the anti-gun nature of the Obama administration, we know they aren’t going to instruct the Postal service properly.

While I absolutely despise the Oboma administration, did the Bush administration instruct the post office any differently in his EIGHT years? I am glad the sheep have been scared into a fright, but I really am clueless as to why so many are just now on the defensive(That doesn't apply to most on this site). Really, what has he done that could hurt the gun rights community, besides his judicial appointments?

It really is sad that all we can do to find distinction between a Republican and a Democrat president is judicial appointments. Don't get me wrong Obama Care is a big deal, but so was medicare. We could go further back, how about OSHA or the EPA.

Maybe the religious conservatives and the fiscal conservatives will forget about their Huckabees and Romneys respectively, and realize they have been a bunch of F-ing retards, and that these candidates are only praying on how F-ing retarded their voting base is.

If you think you know where I am going you are probably right, but I just wanted to remind the idiots out there one more time of their stupidity.

If people want to have an abortion, keep in mind it's not your baby, those types of laws do not belong at the federal level, and freedom is a hell of a lot more important you F-ing retards.

If all you people care about are tax rates, your missing the big picture which is that the federal government has no authority to tax your income. The only authority they have is a combination of their strength and your complacency. If you really think the FED is needed because our economy would go down the shitter without them, your F-ing retarded. They are the ones who put us in the shitter to begin with. We're going to have to suck it up eventually, so why do you want your children to be the ones who have to do it.

There is only one answer. Luckily it is a simple one. The answer is Freedom.

Ron Paul 2012

I hope that two things are true:

That this organization that I never heard of before, which is begging for free money from gun owners, is legitimate.

And that their attorneys have a better understanding of the applicable rules and regulations than is possessed by the person who wrote the sentence I copied above, the "Executive Director" of the organization begging for money. He's mixing bits from different places.

A very lucid discussion can be found here:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Conce...rude-awakening

I remember reading this case before. Unfortunately, it sounded like the attorney was just someone trying to get his name in the papers. I could be wrong, and I hope I am, because they would appear to have a good case. Wasn't the 2nd amendment's most basic function to keep the federal government from passing any firearm legislation? Isn't the post office a federal entity? This should be an open and shut case, but I'm sure it won't be for the courts.

[pitbullet]

Good luck with the suit 5711_MARINE...
It seems they are trying to swallow more and more rights as the decades go by :{

[F16vipers]

Interesting, I thought that the law banned possession of firearms in all federal buildings, not just the post offices. If that's the case, then the lawsuit may be miss-directed. If not, then please disregard my post.

Has anyone addressed this yet? All federal buildings and enclaves are off limits for firearms...not sure if the DC ruling changed anything with that or not?

[MDJschool]

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...-over-yet.html

SATURDAY, APRIL 9, 2011

Bonidy v. USPS - Not Over Yet
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch granted the defense's motion to dismiss the suit brought by Debbie and Tab Bonidy against the U.S. Postal Service back on March 22nd. The Bonidys' were suing the Postal Service over its ban on firearms on Postal Service property. When Judge Matsch issued his ruling, he gave the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 11th.

Attorney Jim Manley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Bonidys and the National Association for Gun Rights on Friday. The amended complaint narrows the focus of the challenge to the Postal Service's ban on firearms to possession in the parking lot.
21. There is a public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office; the parking lot is located on real property under the charge and control of the USPS.

22. West Beaver Creek Boulevard is designated an emergency snow route; thus,
parking on West Beaver Creek Boulevard is prohibited whenever snow accumulation exceeds two inches. Because of this restriction, public parking on West Beaver Creek Boulevard is often disallowed and is therefore sporadic and unpredictable throughout the winter.

23. The public USPS parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office is the only public
parking consistently available to patrons of the Avon Post Office.

The Second Amended Complaint notes that USPS security personal do not either electronically screen people entering the Avon Post Office for weapons nor do they limit access to those who have been screened and determined to be unarmed. This statement of fact is a new addition to the case.

The earlier complaints only have one claim for relief based upon USPS regulations that prevent the Bonidys from carrying firearms, either openly or concealed, on USPS property in violation of their Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment Complaint states two claims for relief. First, they challenge the USPS regulations which ban firearms on any real property "under the charge and control of the USPS, including firearms stored in private vehicles parked in the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office."

The second claim for relief challenges the USPS regulations which ban the carrying of a functional firearm (openly carried or concealed) within the Avon Post Office. Both claims for relief state that these bans violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The Court is being asked to declare that USPS regulations, specifically 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), violates the plaintiffs' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. It is also being asked to permanently enjoin the Postal Service from enforcing 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) which bans possession of firearms on any real property under its control.

By separating the claim into two parts - inside the Post Office and outside in the parking lot - the plaintiffs are forcing the Department of Justice to try and make the case that an open-access public parking lot is as much a "sensitive area" as the inside of the Post Office. Common sense, to use a term in vogue with gun controllers, would clearly indicate that a parking lot is not a "sensitive area".
POSTED BY JOHN RICHARDSON AT 11:01 PM
LABELS: BONIDY ET AL V. USPS ET AL
1 COMMENTS:

RKV said...
John, this "sensitive areas" exception is going to need definition. Fortunately there are related precedents ... here's one. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty." Majority opinion in DeShaney v. Winnebago County. Basically if the USPS requires you to forgo your constitutional right to armed self defense, it has an affirmative duty to protect you. The USPS sure does NOT do that in any measurable way based on the facts in this case.

APRIL 10, 2011 8:58 AM

[nlcrsn]

It's a shame this is only now being brought forth. Any restriction on firearms by the FED is illegal & should be removed.

[ArcticSplash]

You would think when it comes to firearms, the Post Office has a much bigger problem with their own EMPLOYEES and firearms, and I don't think the "postals" have much of a regard on whether or not firearms are permitted or not permitted at the workplace.

However, I would not want to be a letter carrier doing the circular route through a neighborhood where most of the front windows have bullet holes in them--unarmed.

[nlcrsn]

Any news on this one?