• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

USPS and Carry

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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."...
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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.

:banghead:

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
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!
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
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/unpub/08/08-31197.0.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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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/unpub/08/08-31197.0.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
 

ak56

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
746
Location
Carnation, Washington, USA
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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/attachment.php?attachmentid=90591&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:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
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:

Blk97F150

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
1,179
Location
Virginia
necropost
to post in a thread that has been "dead", by being inactive for a relatively long period.
 
Top