Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Post office parking lot carry - Federal Judge ruling

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267

    Post office parking lot carry - Federal Judge ruling

    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz2YgUC9FoS

    ----------------------------------

    A federal judge has ruled that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates the Second Amendment in a case brought by an Avon man and a national gun rights group.

    But Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said the Postal Service has a right to bar Tab Bonidy, who filed the lawsuit, from carrying his gun into the Post Office building itself.

    Bonidy, who brought the suit along with the National Association for Gun Rights, in U.S. District Court in Denver, has a concealed carry permit and routinely carries a firearm.

    ....


    ""The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy's liberty can be accommodated by modifying the regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to "have ready access to essential postal services" provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense."
    Last edited by slapmonkay; 07-10-2013 at 09:06 PM.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz2YgUC9FoS

    ----------------------------------

    A federal judge has ruled that a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring firearms in its parking lots violates the Second Amendment in a case brought by an Avon man and a national gun rights group.

    But Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch said the Postal Service has a right to bar Tab Bonidy, who filed the lawsuit, from carrying his gun into the Post Office building itself.

    Bonidy, who brought the suit along with the National Association for Gun Rights, in U.S. District Court in Denver, has a concealed carry permit and routinely carries a firearm.

    ....


    ""The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy's liberty can be accommodated by modifying the regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to "have ready access to essential postal services" provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense."
    Unfortunately, this Judge has bought into the idea that an openly carried weapon is a "danger" to public safety. We, OC'rs need to get this judge, and the general population to understand that is just not the case.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,991
    I love how the press always point out "Mr. Smith, who has a concealed weapon permit". What does the CPL have to do with the story?
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  5. #5
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Someone should have asked the judge during the case for a declaratory judgment on whether a business that excludes firearms carry takes on any liability in the event of a person so disarmed being shot in a robbery or mass shooting while disarmed and unable to defend themselves.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Thanks for the link ... the court missed out one important fact in respect to the building itself though ... people who enter have no protection from the post office upon entry, unlike manned POs that have USPS employees there, acting as a deterrent.


    I did like the judge's comment about it not being a simple administrative case examination ....

  7. #7
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Someone should have asked the judge during the case for a declaratory judgment on whether a business that excludes firearms carry takes on any liability in the event of a person so disarmed being shot in a robbery or mass shooting while disarmed and unable to defend themselves.
    That's right, if a business doesn't agree with us then the state should pass laws and force them to comply, great idea Comrade ill submit to the Commissar
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    There are good reasons for barring weapons within the postal building itself, Matsch said. "An individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purpose."
    Does the Judge not know the origin of the phrase going postal? I would like to be able to defend myself when a Postal Worker can't handle the stress of their $18/hour job with full benefits and pension.

    In my neck of the woods, there are a lot of ESL postal workers who probably are the hoplophobes the judge refers to. Regardless, presence of a gun should not induce panic nor alarm.

    On a lighter note, guns do excite passions... we all know this.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's right, if a business doesn't agree with us then the state should pass laws and force them to comply, great idea Comrade ill submit to the Commissar
    You are right! They should stop meddling in other areas too, like mandating handicap parking and restrooms etc.......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You are right! They should stop meddling in other areas too, like mandating handicap parking and restrooms etc.......
    +100 ! Handicapped parking spaces used to be called GOOD PARKING SPACES

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by golddigger14s View Post
    I love how the press always point out "Mr. Smith, who has a concealed weapon permit". What does the CPL have to do with the story?
    I guess it does point out that "Mr. Smith" had no legal problems that would disqualify him from possessing the firearm to begin with. Beyond that you're right, nothing.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    "In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. "

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/152776706/MSJ-Order
    Live Free or Die!

  13. #13
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    You are right! They should stop meddling in other areas too, like mandating handicap parking and restrooms etc.......
    I was not aware restrooms were mandated, at least for customers. there's plenty of businesses around here with no public restroom.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  14. #14
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    "In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. "

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/152776706/MSJ-Order
    now since this federal judge has ruled the second amendment protects a general right to open carry, is this the same Judicial district as Denver? if so can this ruling be used to challenge Denver's open carry ban?
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    "In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. "

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/152776706/MSJ-Order
    I don't need a judge to tell me dat .... nice he noticed it for us lowly bipeds

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    OC activists cheer federal judge’s Colorado ruling


    Open Carry activists across the country, including the Pacific Northwest, are cheering a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that declared a ban on guns in post office parking lots to be unconstitutional, and they will likely be talking about it today at an Open Carry picnic the Kitsap County park in Port Orchard.


    http://www.examiner.com/article/oc-a...olorado-ruling

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    Does the Judge not know the origin of the phrase going postal? I would like to be able to defend myself when a Postal Worker can't handle the stress of their $18/hour job with full benefits and pension.

    In my neck of the woods, there are a lot of ESL postal workers who probably are the hoplophobes the judge refers to. Regardless, presence of a gun should not induce panic nor alarm.

    On a lighter note, guns do excite passions... we all know this.
    lol ... what PO does this judge visit? I want to party with that guy, thinking a PO excites folks.

    Likely would be disappointed ... bingo nite is not the great "crazy pandemonium" that this judge thinks it is.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That's right, if a business doesn't agree with us then the state should pass laws and force them to comply, great idea Comrade ill submit to the Commissar
    And what of my private property rights to my own body, the insides of my pockets, and whatever pieces of my private property I choose to put in them?

    The fact that I step onto land you own does not strip me of any of my own rights to what I own.

    The government exists to (among other things) enforce things like that. This is not a new function.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    And what of my private property rights to my own body, the insides of my pockets, and whatever pieces of my private property I choose to put in them?

    The fact that I step onto land you own does not strip me of any of my own rights to what I own.

    The government exists to (among other things) enforce things like that. This is not a new function.
    All rights are property rights, including the the natural law theory we founded this country on that you have property within your own being. Your property with in your own being does not trump my property rights. So you still retain all your rights you just are not allowed to exercise them on my property against my wishes, you have the choice not to be on my property. You do not have the right to be on someone else's property engaging in any activity or right they don't want.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-14-2013 at 07:37 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    All rights are property rights, including the the natural law theory we founded this country on that you have property within your own being. Your property with in your own being does not trump my property rights. So you still retain all your rights you just are not allowed to exercise them on my property against my wishes, you have the choice not to be on my property. You do not have the right to be on someone else's property engaging in any activity or right they don't want.
    And likewise, your property rights do not trump my property rights to put what I want in my pockets.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    And likewise, your property rights do not trump my property rights to put what I want in my pockets.

    Are you saying I have no right to determine what is allowed on my property while you are there?
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 07-15-2013 at 09:25 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Yes he is......he stated it twice it seems.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Yes he is......he stated it twice it seems.
    It does but after careful reading, it seems to be vague and I don't want to assume.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Slightly right of center
    Posts
    166
    Some folks just can't grasp the concept of get off my lawn. If I don't like what you're doing, or even if I do, I have the right to tell you to leave my property. Period. Doesn't matter why. I could tell you that I hate your sleeveless shirt. You'll just have to go bare your arms somewhere else.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    And likewise, your property rights do not trump my property rights to put what I want in my pockets.
    Oh yes, yes they do.

    Try me and we'll find out.

    (More specifically, you never had a right to have anything in your pockets at all while on my property in the first place, as your right to bring stuff is curtailed sharply at my property line. Rights, properly understood, do not overlap.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Flopsweat View Post
    Some folks just can't grasp the concept of get off my lawn. If I don't like what you're doing, or even if I do, I have the right to tell you to leave my property. Period. Doesn't matter why. I could tell you that I hate your sleeveless shirt. You'll just have to go bare your arms somewhere else.
    +1

    That was good. I like that.
    Last edited by marshaul; 07-17-2013 at 06:15 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •