Another news article about the ruling:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2b6YbfPyV
Quote:
|
"The district court concluded that the Supreme Court in Heller upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms openly outside the home for self-defense, subject only to reasonable public safety-related restrictions."
|
Quote:
|
"As to the interior of the Avon Post Office, the district court found it a “sensitive” place and. therefore, the Postal Service’s regulation is presumptively valid there. The matter of the public parking lot, however, is another story. Government ownership alone is not sufficient to restrict constitutional liberties, the district court held. The lot is not a government building, it’s not a place where government business is conducted, nor is there meaningful limitation on those who enter it. In fact, the Postal Service lot is little different from other nearby public lots."
|
I was very happy to that last bit of reasoning regarding 'meaningful limitation on those who enter it'. I have long thought that the standard for what constitutes a sensitive place should include a requirement for controlled egress and ingress and armed security personnel. If a place is sensitive enough to suspend the right to self-defense, then such measures are reasonable and should be required.
My logic is that if the government is going to suspend the right to self defense for security reasons, then a standard such as the following ought to apply:
1)The government must treat the zone according to the security risk they assert exists by controlling ingress/egress and provide alternative means of address the amplified security risk they allege.
2) The government must assume the burden and liability of defending those whose self-defense rights it suspends.
Such a standard is far from novel or radical (with the exception of liability for failure to defend). These factors have long existed in in every other typically sensitive place such as airports, jails, courthouses, political rallies, police stations, etc.
Typical so-called gun free school zones would not qualify under such a standard, but could and should be brought into compliance, IMO. (Or, in the alternative, allow otherwise lawful carry) The increased security should be self-evident.