Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: USPS and Carry

  1. #1
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121

    USPS and Carry

    So my google-fu being weak this morning as it relates to carrying in the USPS many people (to my faulted recollection) have stated that carry even on USPS property (parking lot) could result in an arrest and possible prosecution. However, according to the article "http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/you-can-now-bear-arms-in-a-post-office-parking-lot-20130711" this may not be the case.

    ...
    According to Thursday's ruling by District Judge Richard Matsch, the USPS legal counsel responded to Bonidy, saying, "Regulations governing conduct on postal property prevent (Bonidy) from carrying firearms, openly or concealed, onto any real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service."
    She was referring to Title 39 of the Federal Regulations, which dates back to 1972:
    Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, 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.
    Feeling his rights were being violated, Bonidy teamed up with the National Association for Gun Rights to file suit against this provision.
    And they won. Well, at least partially. Judge Matsch maintained that USPS did violate Bonidy's rights by not permitting him to leave a gun in the trunk of his car. But guns inside the post office itself are still forbidden.
    Citing the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (the case that ended the handgun ban in the District of Columbia), it is still in the federal government's right to deny carrying firearms within the actual buildings. "The Avon Post Office building is used for a governmental purpose by significant numbers of people, with no means of securing their safety;" the judge wrote. "Therefore, it is a sensitive place, and the USPS Regulation is presumed to be valid as applied to the building.... There is no such easy answer as to the public parking lot."...
    When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

    excerpt By Marko Kloos (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/?s=major+caudill)

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Thanks Nuc, good find !

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    It's a good start, even though the judge is absolutely wrong in their reason for why it is still "OK" to ban carry inside the USPS buildings:

    "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.""

    Apparently this judge is not aware of the uneventful open carry that happens every day in the majority of states in the country... either that or they have some reason to believe that people become raging criminals as soon as they cross the threshold into a Post Office...

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 07-12-2013 at 11:39 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    If anyone has time to chase down a link to the ruling, that would be swell!

    TFred

  5. #5
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If anyone has time to chase down a link to the ruling, that would be swell!

    TFred
    Here's what I found so far. http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/n...r#.UeAoFkHqmEx
    Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
    Benjamin Franklin said, "A government that does not trust it's citizens with guns is a government that should not be trusted."



  6. #6
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf_shadow View Post
    Thanks!

    Some day they're going to have to address the elephant in the room that a restriction to only "official purposes" does violate the Second Amendment. And at the same time the twin elephant, that "lawful purposes" DOES include otherwise legal carry for self-defense...

    This is one more chip off the block.

    TFred

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    A reminder - this ruling applies to Colorado only.

    Do not rush out and bet your 2A (and other) rights on a federal district judge in Virginia agreeing with the judge in Colorado.

    There is a chance USPS will appeal the decision, and then the ruling may apply to the 10th Circuit. If USPS loses there they might appeal to SCOTUS - only if SCOTUS upholds the 10th Circuit's upholding the Colorado district court's ruling will it be nation-wide.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A reminder - this ruling applies to Colorado only.

    Do not rush out and bet your 2A (and other) rights on a federal district judge in Virginia agreeing with the judge in Colorado.

    There is a chance USPS will appeal the decision, and then the ruling may apply to the 10th Circuit. If USPS loses there they might appeal to SCOTUS - only if SCOTUS upholds the 10th Circuit's upholding the Colorado district court's ruling will it be nation-wide.

    stay safe.
    They may be dumb, but they aren't stupid. They can read the writing on the wall. I'm betting they let it go, which lets them continue to infringe on the other 49 states.



    TFred

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Bonidy et al v. United States Postal Service et al Document List

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    If anyone has time to chase down a link to the ruling, that would be swell! TFred
    http://archive.recapthelaw.org/cod/122068/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Good source of background, but that site hasn't been updated in over a year!

    TFred

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Good source of background, but that site hasn't been updated in over a year!

    TFred
    One of the major concerns I have about reading much into it is that Colorado is more protective of the inside of ones vehicle than Virginia.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    A reminder - this ruling applies to Colorado only.

    Do not rush out and bet your 2A (and other) rights on a federal district judge in Virginia agreeing with the judge in Colorado.

    There is a chance USPS will appeal the decision, and then the ruling may apply to the 10th Circuit. If USPS loses there they might appeal to SCOTUS - only if SCOTUS upholds the 10th Circuit's upholding the Colorado district court's ruling will it be nation-wide.

    stay safe.
    I see this ruling as a failure, we were already protected under the Fourth Amendment from unlawful search and seizure in a postal parking lot. What this ruling did is confirm that the circuit court in that district does not consider concealed carry a right. This is not the first ruling they have handed down on this. These numpties need to stop arguing concealed carry and argue the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to be secure in person and property. Instead they are pushing this insane idea of forcing concealed carry on the rest of us. Thank God the judges have ruled against this, because it would be a terrible mistake to rule in favor of licensed conceal carry as a right. A total disaster, as seen by what has happened in Illinois.

    Illinois should be a lesson to all why not to do things half arsed. And why not to argue privileges instead of rights.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I see this ruling as a failure, we were already protected under the Fourth Amendment from unlawful search and seizure in a postal parking lot. What this ruling did is confirm that the circuit court in that district does not consider concealed carry a right. This is not the first ruling they have handed down on this. These numpties need to stop arguing concealed carry and argue the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to be secure in person and property. Instead they are pushing this insane idea of forcing concealed carry on the rest of us. Thank God the judges have ruled against this, because it would be a terrible mistake to rule in favor of licensed conceal carry as a right. A total disaster, as seen by what has happened in Illinois.

    Illinois should be a lesson to all why not to do things half arsed. And why not to argue privileges instead of rights.

    And the Choir sang:

    AAmen...aaaamen, aamen, amen, amen!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    And the Choir sang:

    AAmen...aaaamen, aamen, amen, amen!




    1+
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  15. #15
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    This is all very interesting. I'd love to hear an attorney's point of view.

    This judge felt differently about the parking lot in 2009:

    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...1197.0.wpd.pdf



    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 08-31197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Plaintiff – Appellee v. CLARENCE PAUL DOROSAN,
    Defendant – Appellant

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 08-CR-42-1

    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

    Defendant-Appellant Clarence Paul Dorosan appeals his conviction of violating 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) for bringing a handgun onto property belonging to the United States Postal Service. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

    Dorosan raises one argument on appeal: The regulation under which he was convicted violates his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 555 U.S. —-, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2822 (2008). Assuming Dorosan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends to carrying a handgun in his car, Dorosan’s challenge nonetheless fails.

    First, the Postal Service owned the parking lot where Dorosan’s handgun was found, and its restrictions on guns stemmed from its constitutional authority as the property owner. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3 cl. 2; United States v. Gliatta, 580 F.2d 156, 160 (5th Cir. 1978). This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power that was the source of the ban addressed in Heller. See 128 S. Ct. at 2787-88 (noting the laws in question “generally prohibit[ed] the possession of handguns” anywhere in the city).

    Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the “sensitive places” exception recognized by Heller. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2816-17 (holding that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings . . . .”).

    Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site. Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.

    In conclusion, the above-stated facts do not compel us to hold that § 232.1(l) as applied to Dorosan is unconstitutional under any applicable level of scrutiny.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  16. #16
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by ProShooter View Post
    This is all very interesting. I'd love to hear an attorney's point of view.

    This judge felt differently about the parking lot in 2009:

    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...1197.0.wpd.pdf
    The big difference between these two cases is that the Louisiana case was talking about an employee, in the employee parking lot where they handled mail.

    The Colorado case is talking about the customer parking lot, which is not where the USPS employees handle mail.

    TFred

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Washington, USA
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The big difference between these two cases is that the Louisiana case was talking about an employee, in the employee parking lot where they handled mail.

    The Colorado case is talking about the customer parking lot, which is not where the USPS employees handle mail.

    TFred
    The judge in this case addressed this issue


    Next, Defendants point out that the Fifth Circuit upheld the precise regulation at issue here, after concluding that a USPS employee parking lot qualified as a sensitive place because “the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks”;in other words, “as a place of regular government business.”United States v. Dorosan, 350Fed. App’x 874, 875 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).

    This case is different. In terms of postal business being conducted in the parking lot, Defendants have offered evidence that there are mailboxes in the lot that patrons may use to drop off mail while driving through. But lone mail receptacles used by an undetermined number of transient patrons is easily distinguishable from the lot at issue in Dorosan, which was regularly used by Postal Service employees for processing high volumes of mail via USPS mail trucks.See Dorosan, 350Fed. App’x at 875.

    In addition, there are no restrictions on access to the Avon Post Office parking lot beyond a sign posted at the front of the lot limiting parking to 30 minutes, whichis not meaningfully enforced. As shown by the aerial photographs in the record, there is little to distinguish the USPS parking lot from other public parking lots in the near vicinity. By contrast, Dorosan involved a USPS employee parking lot that was enclosed by a gate, with a sign on both entrances warning that vehicles entering the lot were subject to search.United Case 1:10-cv-02408-RPM Document 44 Filed 07/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 11
    7 States v. Dorosan, No. 08-042, 2008 WL 2622996, at *1 (E.D. La. June 30, 2008) (Knowles,M.J.). Therefore, Dorosan’s reasoning and facts are not helpful to Defendants’ position.


    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford as quoted in Terry v Ohio.


    Talk to your cats about catnip - before it's too late.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    If upheld at the Circuit Court level, this appears to be a great victory for gun rights.

    "In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the
    Second Amendment."

    Link: http://thefiringline.com/forums/atta...1&d=1373509069

    My favorite part is when he points to Judge Posner's judgement from the 7th. Kind of daring his circuit to overturn (creating extremely different case law - a split - amongst the circuits.) They will try hard to overturn this one on standing or some technicality, but the record establishing standing is airtight.
    Last edited by Thundar; 07-15-2013 at 03:24 PM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  19. #19
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up The audio to the Oral Arguments to Bonidy are here.

    A non-party to the appeal filed a motion to release the oral arguments which was granted yesterday. I sent him an email asking for a copy which he forwarded to me this afternoon.

    I've added the oral arguments in the Bonidy case to my collection of Second Amendment oral arguments maintained at my website.

    You can find the audio to the Bonidy Oral arguments under the October 21, 2014 Update by clicking here.

    By the way, this is an as-applied challenge limited to one post office. The Court of Appeals may or may not weigh in as to whether or not it believes the "regulation" is facially invalid.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  20. #20
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    It's a good start, even though the judge is absolutely wrong in their reason for why it is still "OK" to ban carry inside the USPS buildings:

    "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.""

    Apparently this judge is not aware of the uneventful open carry that happens every day in the majority of states in the country... either that or they have some reason to believe that people become raging criminals as soon as they cross the threshold into a Post Office...

    TFred
    This is very similar to what one of the chairmen on the VA Board of DGIF said when I spoke to the Board about open carry while hunting during bow/muzzleloader season. "Well if you're open carrying a pistol during bow season, it must be assumed that you are hunting with it." NO. Do these people not know the law? Open carry is not reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed and these laws are unconstitutional.
    Last edited by The Truth; 10-21-2014 at 05:42 PM.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,182
    necropost
    to post in a thread that has been "dead", by being inactive for a relatively long period.

  22. #22
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Blk97F150 View Post
    necropost
    to post in a thread that has been "dead", by being inactive for a relatively long period.
    Easily remedied by not subscribing to the thread, or by ignoring the posts or by asking for the thread to be closed.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 10-26-2014 at 01:16 AM.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  23. #23
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Fortunately I don't have to worry about this at my local post office. I can park, walk on the sidewalk right in front of the PO, and use their mail drop off box and am breaking no federal laws.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Fortunately I don't have to worry about this at my local post office. I can park, walk on the sidewalk right in front of the PO, and use their mail drop off box and am breaking no federal laws.
    Works well as long as you don't need to pick up any mail. The plaintiff in the case lived where there was no RFD mailbox delivery - no choice but to go inside the PO to open his box to get all the groccery coupons and satallite tv offers. OBTW - about half the gun-stuff suppliers ship by USPS, which adds to the number of times you might want to go inside the PO.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  25. #25
    Regular Member cjohnson44546's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Thanks!

    Some day they're going to have to address the elephant in the room that a restriction to only "official purposes" does violate the Second Amendment. And at the same time the twin elephant, that "lawful purposes" DOES include otherwise legal carry for self-defense...

    This is one more chip off the block.

    TFred
    That will never happen.

    The government is held accountable to the constitution by another part of the same government, that is appointed by the government that breaks it... basically, the judges who make the ruling are lap dogs of those breaking the constitution... so they twist everything how they want it, instead of how it is, and claim it whichever way they want it to be. I don't see how this will ever change.

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
  •