Federal judge rules it unconstitutional to ban guns from pos

[jdege]

https://www.foxbangor.com/news/national/federal-judge-rules-it-unconstitutional-to-ban-guns-from-post-offices/article_54353ba7-7dd0-59af-9238-02093c2d2dc5.html
Federal judge rules it unconstitutional to ban guns from post offices

A federal judge in Florida ruled that a U.S. law prohibiting people from possessing firearms inside post offices is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, an appointee of former President Trump, cited a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights when she handed down her ruling Friday that dismissed part of an indictment charging a postal worker with illegally possessing a gun in a federal facility.

[Rip Van Winkle]

[jdege]

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a)Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

[...]

(d)Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3)the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Which, as I read it, makes carry of a handgun for self defense legal.

But the Postal Service reads it differently.

39 CFR § 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

(l) 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.

It's not the statute that needs to be overturned, just the regulation.

But it seems this judge has tossed the statute. This matters, because the statute applies to all federal facilities, not just post offices.

But don't start carrying yet. This wasn't an injuction. The Post Office wasn't ordered to allow carry. This guy was charged with violating a number of laws, she dismissed the charge of carrying in a federal facility but allowed the other charges to stand. The ruling applies only to him, in this specific legal proceeding. It establishes no precedent.

[IvanTheTerribleShot]

USCCA's Tom Grieve has a word of caution.



12:53 "I do want to make a note that this is not precedent setting, so don't go carrying firearms in your post office open carrying and saying I'm going to be good 'cause I saw this video on YouTube; no, this is a federal district court, this is a trial court, this is not a precedent setting court, and rest assured I suspect that this will be appealed and we will follow this..."

[Lumpy]

Back when a lot of rural areas had the local general store double as an official US post office, they would literally make a federal case out of it if the store got robbed. I remember reading about the case of some poor stupid bastard who ended up doing decades in the federal pen for the trivial amount of money he got out of the register.

[bstrawse]

I don't see this holding up on appeal given that the court called out sensitive places such as government buildings in Bruen, but we'll see what happens when it is appealed.
b

[usnret]

Considering that the Post Office is a private company and not part of the federal government, I don't see how they have been getting away with this claiming that it is federal property.

[bstrawse]

Considering that the Post Office is a private company and not part of the federal government, I don't see how they have been getting away with this claiming that it is federal property.

The postal service is an independent agency within the executive branch (See postal act of 1792 and subsequent legislation) - it is not a private company.

Bryan