The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11, 2013, 03:53 PM   #26
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 220
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.
press1280 is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 04:07 PM   #27
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 498
One more step in the right direction.

I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

Give me liberty or give me death.
motorhead0922 is online now  
Old July 11, 2013, 04:15 PM   #28
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead0922
I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
As long as the parking lots are uncontrolled. That seems to be the thrust of the opinion.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 11, 2013, 04:52 PM   #29
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead0922
I can see this being applied to the parking lots of more federal facilities.
Parking lots of federal facilities other than postal facilities are not off-limits. The general law banning firearms in federal facilities defines "facility" as a building ... which clearly does not include a parking lot.

The postal service has its own regulation, and that refers to "property" rather than "facility."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:19 AM   #30
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
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
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:39 AM   #31
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,172
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.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:50 AM   #32
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 12:53 AM   #33
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,172
That's exactly what we're trying to do here in Florida, due to particular wording in our state constitution. This helps a lot.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 02:56 AM   #34
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 220
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.
press1280 is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 07:21 AM   #35
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
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.
This caveat is big enough you could park the Empire State Building within it.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2013, 07:48 AM   #36
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro p
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.
The USPS is going more and more to locating sales locations in rented storefronts rather than maintaining their own properties as dedicated post office buildings. There are several of them around here, and more coming. In those situations, the parking lot is not USPS property, it is the landlord's property, and the USPS prohibition against firearms doesn't come into play until you walk through the door.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 12:11 AM   #37
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Frankly, I think we should take the win and move on. We'll see what the Government will do, within 45 days.
Got this from Dudley Brown today. From the language, it looks like they will be continuing this fight.

Quote:
Dear Jim,

We have some great news!

RMGO, in conjunction with our parent organization, the National Association for Gun Rights, won a legal battle in federal court this week over the right to carry.

The court ruled that the United States Postal Service could not ban firearms in the parking lots of their offices.

However, the court did uphold a ban in the physical buildings of the U.S.P.S., but RMGO and NAGR are planning on appealing that portion of the ruling.

Read the press release below to find out more details about the case.

For now, enjoy this victory in the ongoing fight to preserve our right to keep and bear arms!

-Dudley

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
jimpeel is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 07:50 AM   #38
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 01:31 PM   #39
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 220
But is the government appealing also?
press1280 is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 01:49 PM   #40
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 09:14 PM   #41
esqappellate
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.
esqappellate is offline  
Old August 5, 2013, 01:28 PM   #42
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 5, 2013, 02:23 PM   #43
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
If a place is sensitive enough to suspend the right to self-defense, then such measures are reasonable and should be required.
Put another way, if a place is NOT sensitive to require these measures, it's arguable not sensitive enough to deny the fundamental civil right of self defense.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 15, 2013, 12:36 PM   #44
Segerrik
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2011
Posts: 9
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.
Segerrik is offline  
Old August 15, 2013, 12:55 PM   #45
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
Quote:
So the case has little value because it has no precedent.
It is more accurate to say it has limited value as precedent. Lawyers routinely cite to district court opinions but they obviously aren't as influential as a federal appellate court. In this case, the judge did not recommend it for official publication which makes it a bit more obscure. It can still be reported and does have a WestLaw citation -- 2013 WL 3448130. That means it can be found by anyone with a subscription to WestLaw (a legal database).
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old October 25, 2013, 01:49 PM   #46
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
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:
07/09/2013 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 32 and 33[RECAP] : the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner. The other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 7/9/2013.(rpmcd) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 45 JUDGMENT by Clerk and Approved by Court re 44 : the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner.The other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied. Plaintiffs Tad Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights shall have their costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of entry of judgment, by Clerk on 7/9/2013. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/16/2013 46 Proposed Bill of Costs by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document STIPULATION AS TO BILL OF COSTS)(Manley, James) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/16/2013 47 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 1,530.65 against Defendants (ervsl, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

09/06/2013 48 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, 45 Clerk's Judgment,, by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin, United States Postal Service (Olson, Lisa) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 49 LETTER Transmitting Notice of Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee not paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record)(dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 50 USCA Case Number 13-1374 for 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/18/2013 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 45 Clerk's Judgment by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights (Filing fee $ 455, Receipt Number 1082-3540103) (Manley, James) (Modified on 9/19/2013 to indicate cross appeal) (dbrow, ). (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/19/2013 52 LETTER Transmitting Notice of Cross Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record)(dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/19/2013 53 USCA Case Number 13-1391 for 51 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/20/2013 54 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re 48 Notice of Appeal by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin, John Potter, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service (Olson, Lisa) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 55 LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file.( Appeal No. 13-1374) Text Only Entry (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

10/01/2013 56 LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL, filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file. ( Appeal No. 13-1391) Text Only Entry (dbrow, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
I'll be looking up the CA10 PACER info later today.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 25, 2013, 04:29 PM   #47
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Thanks, Al.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old October 25, 2013, 08:08 PM   #48
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
There are no pleadings yet, but here is what is on the first docket.

13-1374 - Bonidy [Appellee] v. USPS [Appellant]

Quote:
09/20/2013 [10109960] Docketing statement filed by Patrick Donahoe, Mr. Michael Kervin and USPS. Served on 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374] DT

09/20/2013 [10109999] Filed notice record is complete. Served on 09/20/2012. [13-1374] TEXT ONLY ENTRY.

09/20/2013 [10110322] Notice of appearance submitted by James Martin Manley; Steven James Lechner for Appellees Mr. Tab Bonidy and National Association for Gun Rights for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374]--[Edited 09/23/2013 by LG to remove PDF from entry, as pleading was filed on 9/23/2013] JMM

09/23/2013 [10110343] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Steven J. Lechner, Esq. and Mr. James Martin Manley for Mr. Tab Bonidy and National Association for Gun Rights. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 09/23/2013. Manner of Service: email [13-1374]

09/27/2013 [10112075] Notice of Mediation Conference filed by the Tenth Circuit Mediation Office. Case is referred for mediation conferencing; conference scheduled for 10/07/2013 at 10:00 am (MDT). Please review the attached Notice for additional information. [13-1374, 13-1391]

10/01/2013 [10113197] Cross-appeal briefing schedule set. Issued on 10/01/2013. First brief on cross-appeal is due on 11/12/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. Appellants' appendix is due on 11/12/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374, 13-1391]

10/18/2013 [10117926] On the court's own motion and pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 33.1, order filed by (CLK) extending time to file first brief on cross-appeal and appendix until 11/20/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374, 13-1391]
13-1391 Bonidy [Appellant] v. USPS [Appellee] (This docket is essentially word for word of the first one, except for who is the appellant and/or appellee).

So, it looks like the Government will get the first pleading on Nov. 20th (barring any request for time).
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 27, 2013, 11:13 PM   #49
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 976
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?
dajowi is offline  
Old October 28, 2013, 12:48 AM   #50
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
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?
Heretofore, yes. That's essentially what this case is about. There may have been some grey area when the post office shared a parking lot with private businesses. In any case, the court wasn't buying the 'sensitive places' argument for the parking lot, but upheld it inside the building. The government is appealing.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12940 seconds with 8 queries