U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case

[Neilthepilot]

http://blog.princelaw.com/2016/01/11...mendment-case/


U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case


Today attorney Tom Odom of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will file with the U.S. Supreme Court a brief on behalf of Firearms Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”) and Firearms Industry Consulting Group (“FICG”), in support of the request of Tab Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Bonidy is a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a permit to carry a firearm who lives in rural Colorado. Like millions of other Americans, he obtained such a permit so that he might be prepared to defend himself outside of his home. When the U.S. Postal Service advised Bonidy that he would be subject to prosecution simply for momentarily storing his firearm in the trunk of his vehicle in an unsecured parking lot made available for postal patrons, Bonidy sought a determination that applying the postal regulation to him under such circumstances would violate the Second Amendment.

The area where Bonidy lives is sufficiently rural that there is no home delivery of mail, the lobby of the post office is open to the public at all times so that individuals may retrieve mail from their post office boxes, and the post office does not maintain any regular security employees. Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit stated that both the lobby and the unsecured parking lot where Bonidy proposed to lock the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle constituted “secure places” beyond the scope of the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

In the belief that Bonidy’s case presents a superior opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to make clear that the Second Amendment is not exclusively limited to self-defense within one’s own home, FICG prepared the brief in support of Bonidy’s petition for certiorari on a pro bono basis. FOAC joined in the effort and covered the cost of the printing of the briefs.

The decision below was reported as Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015). The U.S. Supreme Court docket number is 15-746. Here is a link to the brief filed with the court.

[ideaman]

If they refuse to hear it, would they be saying there's only certain places you're allowed to defend your self outdoors? The federal government did approve his carry license.

[press1280]

No he has a Colorado CCW. This case will probably be denied unfortunately.

[Sandcut]

Although I would welcome him winning the case at SCOTUS, what I can envision is SCOTUS coming to the conclusion that the government does have the ability to prohibit firearms in certain locations, e.g., court rooms, govt. buildings, etc. and it will just reinforce the decision by varying agencies to increase the number of prohibited locations, e.g., National Parks and it will set us back from where we actually are. Their rationale will be "If the government does not have the ability to limit the possession of firearms in certain locations, then anyone could bring a gun into this courtroom and we just aren't going to allow that to happen.

I'm not so sure that this is the appropriate case to push clear up to SCOTUS.

[Neilthepilot]

I disagree, this case is whether they can ban the parking lot not the building. By banning the lot they have disarmed him potentially for the whole day and thusly deprived him of his right to self defense.

[ideaman]

Then where ever the locations you can't carry, they must provide the safety.

[DucatiRon]

Why is it every time I hear this law firm mentioned I cringe and say "Dam another step backwards".

[Jhaydeno]

Why is it every time I hear this law firm mentioned I cringe and say "Dam another step backwards".

Yep. I see shoot from the hip and hope you hit your target, without considering distance, wind speed, powder weight, or the fact that its dark out! All this just trying to make a name for himself.

While a good argument or two could be made, and the merits are decent, in the back of my mind I hear a nagging voice keep saying 'Erie, Erie..."

[GunLawyer001]

Yep. I see shoot from the hip and hope you hit your target, without considering distance, wind speed, powder weight, or the fact that its dark out! All this just trying to make a name for himself.

While a good argument or two could be made, and the merits are decent, in the back of my mind I hear a nagging voice keep saying 'Erie, Erie..."

There are certainly parallels. The Erie case advanced the notion that a governmental entity can probably prohibit gun possession on its own property, even where preemption prevents a similar ban anywhere else. This case appears to ask the question, "may the US Postal Service exercise the rights of any other property owner with respect to guns on its own property?"

[ideaman]

There are certainly parallels. The Erie case advanced the notion that a governmental entity can probably prohibit gun possession on its own property, even where preemption prevents a similar ban anywhere else. This case appears to ask the question, "may the US Postal Service exercise the rights of any other property owner with respect to guns on its own property?"

How about a law that requires these locations to provide a lock box area?