• 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 Sensitive Place 2A Lawsuit

slapmonkay

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
1,308
Location
Montana
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?
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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).
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
I say Thumbs Up and Go For It ! :banana::monkey

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:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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:

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
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.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,037
Location
St. Louis, MO
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
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.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
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?ci...48.77236&longitude=-122.45767&geocode=ADDRESS
 
Last edited:

MadHatter66

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
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
 

x1wildone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
53
Location
Eagle, Colorado, USA
"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.
 

x1wildone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
53
Location
Eagle, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 
Top