Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: USPS Sensitive Place 2A Lawsuit

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

    Post USPS Sensitive Place 2A Lawsuit

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19423472

    A federal judge in Denver has allowed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Postal Service's ban on guns in post offices to go forward.

    Avon residents Debbie and Tab Bonidy filed the lawsuit last year, saying the ban violates their Second Amendment rights.

    ...

    They say the ban, which prohibits carrying guns both in post offices and in their parking lots, makes it impossible for them to pick up their mail.

    James Manley, an attorney at the Mountain States Legal Foundation who represents both the Bonidys and the National Association for Gun Rights in the lawsuit, said the case could have a nationwide impact.

    ...
    Thoughts? Do you think they have a chance?
    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
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    It will certainly begin to define 'sensitive areas' as alluded to in Heller/McDonald.

    It will have implications on whether places where federal employees work continue to be a 'sensitive area'. (as Ranger Stations in the NFS are included).
    Live Free or Die!

  3. #3
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Not a chance, at-least, not in the buildings themselves.

    I believe there was already a federal case on this issue quite a few years back in which it was ruled that such zones, even the parking lots, were considered "sensitive" because they are commonly adjacent and/or connected to loading/unloading bays and such.

    Wish I could remember the case name, if I can find it in a web search, I will add it on.

    Personally, I don't think any publicly owned space should be off limits to firearms unless the entire public is screened with armed guards and metal detectors, and the safety of everyone who enters that area is guaranteed by the government entity that restricts it.
    Last edited by FMCDH; 11-28-2011 at 10:24 PM.

  4. #4
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    I say Thumbs Up and Go For It !

    In its defense, the Postal Service has pointed to a case in which the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the conviction of a man who was found to have a handgun in his vehicle in a Postal Service parking lot. That court concluded that Postal Service property was a "sensitive place." But the 5th Circuit's decision is not binding on the Bonidy case.

    Manley counters that the defendant in the 5th Circuit case was a Postal Service employee whose vehicle was parked in a restricted, employees-only lot. No court in the country, he contends, has taken up whether the Second Amendment right to possess firearms extends to public areas of post offices.
    Something like Cherry v. Metro here in Washington State.
    Last edited by BigDave; 11-28-2011 at 11:54 PM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  5. #5
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    It will certainly begin to define 'sensitive areas' as alluded to in Heller/McDonald.

    It will have implications on whether places where federal employees work continue to be a 'sensitive area'. (as Ranger Stations in the NFS are included).
    Gogo, I know the NPS and the USFS like to make you thing where they work is a legit "gun free zone", but that is not what the law states. One of the exemptions is stated in 18 USC 930(d)(3): "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

    The state of Washington specifically acknowledges self defence as a "lawful purpose" in Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. On top of that, what if you are hunting? That is specifically stated as an exemption in 18 USC 930(d)(3) Very specifically (d) states "shall not apply to"
    Last edited by hermannr; 11-29-2011 at 12:06 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    9

    Wink

    It looks like they've decided to 'go postal'.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Gogo, I know the NPS and the USFS like to make you thing where they work is a legit "gun free zone", but that is not what the law states. One of the exemptions is stated in 18 USC 930(d)(3): "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

    The state of Washington specifically acknowledges self defence as a "lawful purpose" in Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. On top of that, what if you are hunting? That is specifically stated as an exemption in 18 USC 930(d)(3) Very specifically (d) states "shall not apply to"
    Correct me if I am wrong but the Washington stating that self-defense is a lawful purpose for carrying a firearm means nothing when you are talking about 18 USC. The federal statutes do not define what lawful purposes are so until it goes to court it is still up in the air as to what a lawful purpose really is.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by FMCDH View Post
    Not a chance, at-least, not in the buildings themselves.

    I believe there was already a federal case on this issue quite a few years back in which it was ruled that such zones, even the parking lots, were considered "sensitive" because they are commonly adjacent and/or connected to loading/unloading bays and such.

    Wish I could remember the case name, if I can find it in a web search, I will add it on.

    Personally, I don't think any publicly owned space should be off limits to firearms unless the entire public is screened with armed guards and metal detectors, and the safety of everyone who enters that area is guaranteed by the government entity that restricts it.
    As I understand it, even the parking lot if it is post office property is off limits to firearm carry. This was a huge problem in Ocean Shores as there is not any off the street parking within a short walk to the post office. You would have to park in an empty grass lot to get off the street and not be on post office property, no way an armed handicap person could retrieve thier mail from a post office box, or pick up a package that requires a signature.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    As I understand it, even the parking lot if it is post office property is off limits to firearm carry. This was a huge problem in Ocean Shores as there is not any off the street parking within a short walk to the post office. You would have to park in an empty grass lot to get off the street and not be on post office property, no way an armed handicap person could retrieve thier mail from a post office box, or pick up a package that requires a signature.
    Or, take for instance the type of post office that sits smack dab in the center of a strip mall or other business park, such as over here in my own town of Kenmore. There are no markers, fences or barriers that indicate which part of the surrounding parking lot is considered Post Office, and which is considered general parking open to the public for all other business. Hell, there is even a drive threw coffee kiosk less 50 feet from the post office.

    Should that be off limits?

    Who then decides what is on or off the post office property? I don't remember seeing a generic footage restriction anywhere in the laws, so is the entire parking lot considered to be off limits, or none of it, or just the parking spots directly adjacent to the post office? Nice little gray area there to entrap people, and I know there are many many post offices around the country that share parking lots and spaces with other businesses. I saw plenty of them in my time in Alaska.

    Frankly, I'm of the mind that if it doesn't appear to be clearly designated for the post office alone, I don't worry about it. If I park in a generic looking lot for some reason, I just make sure I'm closer to one of the other businesses than I am the post office and I carry as usual.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    This lawsuit might just make it. Apparently the Judge thought there were enough merits to the case to let a Jury decide. No doubt there will be appeals, regardless of the verdict, and if it makes it to the SCOTUS, recent rulings there give me hope.
    "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?"

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    As I understand it, even the parking lot if it is post office property is off limits to firearm carry. ...............
    So, I visit the B'ham orleans post office on a regular basis. Before exiting my vehicle, I put my weapon in the lock box and go in. Because I open carry all the time my holster is still there and very visible. Never a word or even a question. When I return to my vehicle, I rearm and leave. Todays question is, "Am I breaking the law by doing this?" There is no sign entering the parking lot, but there is on the entrance.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    So, I visit the B'ham orleans post office on a regular basis. Before exiting my vehicle, I put my weapon in the lock box and go in. Because I open carry all the time my holster is still there and very visible. Never a word or even a question. When I return to my vehicle, I rearm and leave. Todays question is, "Am I breaking the law by doing this?" There is no sign entering the parking lot, but there is on the entrance.
    Well no law against an empty hoslter, I wonder if RAS could be seen given the place, if an Officer where to question.

    Which building is the Post Office? If the big one on the left I find it rather hard not to see that as a post office parking lot!

    http://classic.mapquest.com/maps?cit...eocode=ADDRESS
    Last edited by jbone; 11-30-2011 at 04:31 PM.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Post Office: http://g.co/maps/zkd4n
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by slapmonkay View Post
    That's the one I was thinking of.

    I cannot see how that parking lot could not be seen as post office property, that's just me.

    Add: I think I even see drive through with a mail drop box in the parking lot, another indicator?
    Last edited by jbone; 11-30-2011 at 05:13 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Well no law against an empty hoslter, I wonder if RAS could be seen given the place, if an Officer where to question.
    A LEO would need more than RAS to search your car. S/He needs probable cause. I really don't think that local LEO are snooping around to enforce federal laws. "I do NOT consent to any searches."

  16. #16
    Regular Member MadHatter66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajetpilot View Post
    A LEO would need more than RAS to search your car. S/He needs probable cause. I really don't think that local LEO are snooping around to enforce federal laws. "I do NOT consent to any searches."
    Probable cause doesn't get LE into your car anymore either. Most departments here in WA will actually seal the car and get a warrant anymore. Arizona V. Gant is the case that recently made it almost impossible to search a car on RAS alone, unless there are some pretty clear and urgent exigent circumstances. For vehicles, there is essentially no more search incident to arrest. Cases were getting thrown out left and right because of Gant and improper searches occurring. I know of at least a few departments now that even if there is something in plain sight such as drugs or a firearm, they will just lock the car up, tow it to their impound lot and wait on a warrant.

    So the magic words with a cop wanting to search your car is "Based on Arizona V. Gant, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle, if you wish to search it, you can apply for an obtain a warrant first." Then clam up, and don't say anything else, because cops will try and ruse you into letting them look around your car. There is the old "Just for my safety, can I check the area right around the drivers seat?" or "Anything in your car you would like me to get for you?"

    While I have a lot of respect for LE, I still want them to do it right, and by the law. Unfortunately there are so many people out there willing to throw away their rights by letting LEO's do whatever they want. Many people tend to have the mentality of "I have nothing to hide, go ahead..." So you end up "training" officers to violate peoples rights... The thing to always remember is, unless you are the victim of a crime (and sometimes even if you are the victim) police are not on your side.

    Here is the wikipedia on Gant... http://bit.ly/vuL9Np

    Here is the court decision... http://bit.ly/v8iAcl

  17. #17
    Regular Member x1wildone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eagle, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    55
    "Large numbers of people from all walks of life gather on postal property every day," the motion stated. ". . . The Postal Service is thus responsible for the protection of its employees and all the members of the public who enter postal property."

    Copied from the article in the Denver Post. Kinda opens up another can of worms. This would make a very poor defense for the U.S.P.S.

  18. #18
    Regular Member x1wildone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Eagle, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    55
    Our post office recently notified us that everyone with a pob, had to verify that we were qualified to have a P O B . Two forms of I.D. were required, so I gave them my drivers license and my concealed carry permit. She slid the cc permit back so fast it almost hit the floor, she said it was not accepted. Funny thing is she accepted a credit card.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Gee, the current USPS rule of "no guns" sure is working well.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ostoffice.html

    When the USPS employees "go postal" at random, which is a danger to co-workers and customers alike, then it's fair for customers to exercise their right to self defense via the carrying of a firearm.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by x1wildone View Post
    Our post office recently notified us that everyone with a pob, had to verify that we were qualified to have a P O B . Two forms of I.D. were required, so I gave them my drivers license and my concealed carry permit. She slid the cc permit back so fast it almost hit the floor, she said it was not accepted. Funny thing is she accepted a credit card.
    Valid state issued ID. I don't think she has the authority to reject it.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Gee, the current USPS rule of "no guns" sure is working well.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ostoffice.html

    When the USPS employees "go postal" at random, which is a danger to co-workers and customers alike, then it's fair for customers to exercise their right to self defense via the carrying of a firearm.
    This is a perfect example as to why you should be allowed to defend yourself going to the post office. I hope the couple win their lawsuit.
    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Valid state issued ID. I don't think she has the authority to reject it.
    Probably did so because there is no picture on it. State ID cards and DL's do.
    "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?"

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Probably did so because there is no picture on it. State ID cards and DL's do.
    Was there a pic on the CC that she did accept? Would a Costco card count, since it has a pic? (umm, I actually have used that as official ID lol).

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by x1wildone View Post
    Our post office recently notified us that everyone with a pob, had to verify that we were qualified to have a P O B . Two forms of I.D. were required, so I gave them my drivers license and my concealed carry permit. She slid the cc permit back so fast it almost hit the floor, she said it was not accepted. Funny thing is she accepted a credit card.
    Why are we all ok with this? We all bitch and moan when a LEO demands ID without reason; but not when another government entity does? This is the exact reason, I cannot receive mail at the time.

    I live in an area where home delivery is not available and I had to go get a box at the post office. When they tried to demand multiple forms of identification along with proof of address. I told them to shove it, figuratively of course. They gave me some bs USC as their authorization for requiring the ID. When I went and looked up the code, it had nothing to do with giving the post office authorization to require anything. I researched the entire section of USC pertaining to the USPS and found nothing authorizing them to require ID.

    However, I did find in the Code that created the USPS that they are required to provide postal service to all when it is reasonable to do so. When I brought this to their attention, they tried to sidestep by saying they need a name attached to the box so they can provide service. More bs since the only thing they need to be able to do is compare an address with the number on the box.

    I'm currently in contact with the postmaster and postmaster general about this, this has been going on for over 9 months now. They just refuse to see reason and follow the law.

    I apologize for the lack of cites, I have all my notes on the subject at home. I will add them in when I can.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by kenshin View Post
    Why are we all ok with this? We all bitch and moan when a LEO demands ID without reason; but not when another government entity does? This is the exact reason, I cannot receive mail at the time.

    I live in an area where home delivery is not available and I had to go get a box at the post office. When they tried to demand multiple forms of identification along with proof of address. I told them to shove it, figuratively of course. They gave me some bs USC as their authorization for requiring the ID. When I went and looked up the code, it had nothing to do with giving the post office authorization to require anything. I researched the entire section of USC pertaining to the USPS and found nothing authorizing them to require ID.

    However, I did find in the Code that created the USPS that they are required to provide postal service to all when it is reasonable to do so. When I brought this to their attention, they tried to sidestep by saying they need a name attached to the box so they can provide service. More bs since the only thing they need to be able to do is compare an address with the number on the box.

    I'm currently in contact with the postmaster and postmaster general about this, this has been going on for over 9 months now. They just refuse to see reason and follow the law.

    I apologize for the lack of cites, I have all my notes on the subject at home. I will add them in when I can.

    Nine months? Thats a long time. Maybe it is time to send them a demand letter. Of course you may have a little trouble getting the response since they won't rent you a POB.
    irfner

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
  •