Post office carry suit.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19423472 .This looks good!

Good news, so far so good. I would think since the SCOTUS ruling on Heller, that a post office is under federal control and by banning firearms the government is infringing on the 2A. I don't see what's so sensitive about a post office, not much different than Amtrack.

But since the future of a publicly controlled postal service is in question, this may be a moot point.

Venator said:

Good news, so far so good. I would think since the SCOTUS ruling on Heller, that a post office is under federal control and by banning firearms the government is infringing on the 2A. I don't see what's so sensitive about a post office, not much different than Amtrack.

But since the future of a publicly controlled postal service is in question, this may be a moot point.

Click to expand...

No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Click to expand...

amaixner said:

No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :

Click to expand...

I know, what I was referring to was Heller in regards to a personal right and affecting D.C. a Federal strong-hold.

I don't think a post office is a "sensitive" place.

everybody has heard the saying "going postal" where did that originally come from? wasnt it a post office shooting by a crazed employee?

exactly why the citizens should be allowed to carry in posts offices, postal workers could....go postal and would need to be stopped in seconds, not minutes or hours.

lil_freak_66 said:

everybody has heard the saying "going postal" where did that originally come from?
wasnt it a post office shooting by a crazed employee?

Click to expand...

Impossible!
Nobody but on-duty LEO can have a useful firearm on USPS property.
It's a law.
Laws prevent crime, right?
The postal shooting thing is an urban myth.
[/sarcasm]

I don't know how many of you know the whole story but given the actions of the guys supervisor, his actions didn't really come unexpected. While I don't condone what the guy did; I can understand his frame of mind and why he did it. Being an ex postal employee, his situation didn't surprise me a bit.

At the time there were actually more work place shootings elsewhere. It's just a lot more news drams to put the spotlight on the post office. They milked that story for two weeks and still didn't have all the facts right. No surprise here.

WARCHILD said:

I don't know how many of you know the whole story but given the actions of the guys supervisor, his actions didn't really come unexpected. While I don't condone what the guy did; I can understand his frame of mind and why he did it. Being an ex postal employee, his situation didn't surprise me a bit.

At the time there were actually more work place shootings elsewhere. It's just a lot more news drams to put the spotlight on the post office. They milked that story for two weeks and still didn't have all the facts right. No surprise here.

Click to expand...

Yea like Ford Motor Co! They had a rash of in plant shootings

i have a hard time wrapping my head around the legality of mailing a long gun while not being able to posses a firearm on USPS property. how is that possible?

Because you can possess one on their property for official business.

Bronson

If the rules were not changed (not sure since I left), the long gun is supposed to be broken down and boxed/cased prior to entering.

They must feel safer if they can't see it...out of sight...out of mind..head still in the sand!

head in the sand, indeed. but then again that's business as usual for the government.

amaixner said:

No. The Heller decision specifically stated that it does NOT call into question bans on guns in "sensitive locations." :

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Forgive me, any time I see someone talk about this part of the Heller decision, I am compelled to fill in the extremely important blanks, which more fully explain exactly what is being said.

[By the way, you quote from the Syllabus portion of the ruling, which is somewhat of an executive summary of the text of the opinion, but which also carries absolutely no legal weight whatsoever. See the definition at the very top of the Heller opinion itself:



On to the important stuff.

Here is the pertinent quote from the actual opinion text, pp 54-55:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Note the all-important footnote, 26, which states:

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

What this means is that not only did Heller not state that these prohibitions pass constitutional muster, but they explicitly stated (by using the word "presumptively") that they did not even consider these matters. At all!

As is almost always the case in complex court cases, only the issues at the very core of the matter are considered. This nearly universally misunderstood part of Heller is the fictitious "gas" that the anti-gun crowd is running on, but unfortunately, what many of the lower anti-gun courts are also basing their flawed opinions on as well.

TFred

I hope they can restore the right to carry there.