|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 11, 2013, 03:53 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
I'm seeing big potential from this ruling. Remember Denver is in this District and it has an open carry ban, yet the judge made clear open carry outside the home is protected.
Now a plaintiff needs to go after Denver again, preferably a non-CO resident, and one that lives in a non-reciprocal state, just in case they tell the person to just get a CCW and everything will be OK. |
July 11, 2013, 04:07 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
One more step in the right direction.
I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
July 11, 2013, 04:15 PM | #28 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
|
July 11, 2013, 04:52 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
The postal service has its own regulation, and that refers to "property" rather than "facility." |
|
July 12, 2013, 12:19 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Good news, in part. Certainly a step in the right direction.
I don't know how it is in other cities, but here in Vegas, there are a number of small post offices located in small, strip mall units. Often, there is not even signage visible from the street. One could easily be in a shared parking lot and not even be aware they were in a post office parking lot. Perilous, if the law were strictly enforced. Here's another link to the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/11...est=latestnews |
July 12, 2013, 12:39 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Here is something else I read from this case.
When and how those restraints may be applied has been and will be the subject of extensive litigation. In Peterson, 707 F.3d at 1201, the Tenth Circuit held that the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection does not include a right to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. That ruling is binding on this Court and defeats the Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Bonidy should be free to carry his concealed handgun on his person in the Avon Post Office and parking lot. But the Peterson panel did not address whether open carry of firearms outside the home is similarly unprotected; indeed, it explicitly declined to do so. See id. at 1208-09. Those who believe in the primacy of collective security read Heller narrowly within the factual context in which the case arose. See discussion as to Part III.B in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011); Piszczatoski v. Filko, 840 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D. N.J. 2012). Judge Posner persuasively discredited that reading by his textual analysis in the opinion deciding Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). Aside from the textual meaning of “bear arms,” he recognized the common-sense view that armed self-defense is important outside the home and that hunting takes place outside the home. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety. ... In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. |
July 12, 2013, 12:50 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I often imagined that open carry could end up being the standard, with the government getting a pass on restricting OC if they allow concealed carry.
|
July 12, 2013, 12:53 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
That's exactly what we're trying to do here in Florida, due to particular wording in our state constitution. This helps a lot.
|
July 12, 2013, 02:56 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Although the logic of not allowing OC in a post office is way off, this is a good ruling for us. Post office carry can wait a little longer. We need a carry outside the home case. This ruling rejects the Masciandaro and Piza(NJ) rulings (only in the home) and supports the Moore ruling. More conflict in the lower courts is a good thing.
|
July 12, 2013, 07:21 AM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
July 12, 2013, 07:48 AM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
|
|
July 13, 2013, 12:11 AM | #37 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Quote:
This was from a general e-mail blast. Nothing proprietary or copyrighted here.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
||
July 13, 2013, 07:50 AM | #38 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Great news, Jim.
While I won't speculate on the chances of success, it is encouraging that Mr. Manley is taking this to the next level. |
July 13, 2013, 01:31 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
But is the government appealing also?
|
July 13, 2013, 01:49 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
The government could file what is called a cross-appeal. The time for filing it is based on the date the plaintiffs' appeal is filed. This effectively gives it more time to appeal.
|
July 14, 2013, 09:14 PM | #41 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Since this case involves the government, both sides have 60 days to appeal under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. If one party files an appeal, the other party has an additional 14 days to file a cross appeal or may file within the original 60 days, whichever is later. Both the plaintiffs and the government lost on one claim. Both can file a notice of appeal.
|
August 5, 2013, 01:28 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Another news article about the ruling:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2b6YbfPyV Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
August 5, 2013, 02:23 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
August 15, 2013, 12:36 PM | #44 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 27, 2011
Posts: 11
|
Appeal Time has run without an appeal
It has been 45 days and it does not appear that USPS has appealed the ruling.
So the case has little value because it has no precident. |
August 15, 2013, 12:55 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2013, 01:49 PM | #46 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Non-government litigants get 45 days to appeal. IIRC, Government litigants get 60 days. On Sept 6th, the Government (USPS is considered a governmental organization, by statute) filed their appeal. That gave Boniday the extra 15 days, which they used and filed a cross-appeal.
Quote:
|
|
October 25, 2013, 04:29 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Thanks, Al.
|
October 25, 2013, 08:08 PM | #48 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
There are no pleadings yet, but here is what is on the first docket.
13-1374 - Bonidy [Appellee] v. USPS [Appellant] Quote:
So, it looks like the Government will get the first pleading on Nov. 20th (barring any request for time). |
|
October 27, 2013, 11:13 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
Let me get this straight. I'm going to the club to do some shooting but I decide to stop and get the mail at the local post office. So I park my car in the parking lot for the 30 seconds it takes me to check my box and I'm committing a crime? A federal offense?
|
October 28, 2013, 12:48 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|