|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 20, 2011, 03:58 PM | #1 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Bonidy vs US Postal Service
Transcript of oral arguments for MSJ 11/19/11
A great read. The judge assumes 2A applies outside the home. More than hints that intermediate scrutiny may apply, at least in the public parking lot. He also claims 1A jurisprudence in analogous. The judge isn't swallowing the sensitive places argument, at least in the parking lot. This is a good one to watch. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; December 21, 2011 at 12:32 AM. |
|||
December 20, 2011, 05:36 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 146
|
Those last three lines there put a big shiny grin on my face. I don't agree with the judge's opinion of what constitutes a 'reasonable' restriction, but overall he seems to be one of the good guys.
This sort of backwards reasoning, however... Quote:
|
|
December 20, 2011, 09:47 PM | #3 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Thanks for starting this thread, Maestro. It'll get linked in the 2A cases thread.
The overall tenor of this hearing seems to indicate that Judge Matsch wants to hear this case develop. |
December 21, 2011, 02:05 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
There is a US postal office in Las Vegas that shares a parking lot with approximately twenty stores, including a bank, a Trader Joe's, a Big 5, and several other independent businesses. The USPO leases one of the smaller spaces just as the other businesses do. There is absolutely no indication from the street that there is a post office in this center. No signage whatsoever. If you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't even look for it.
According to the defendant's argument in Bonidy lots of people would be in violation of USPO policy in this shall-issue, open carry state. |
December 21, 2011, 08:34 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
It would be all more simple if the law regarding the PO was the same as local, state, and federal. No carry inside buildings but parking lots are OK. Really crazy that you can't drive into PO parking lots to drop a letter in the old blue box.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
December 27, 2011, 06:41 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
You have the same problem with the VA Hospitals. They have posted their parking lot prohibiting guns knives and any dangerous weapons.
To me that seems to prohibit the majority of their clients. Most of us could be considered dangerous weapons based on our training. How I long for the days when I could drive to the post office, bank, county court house and the police department with my rifle shotgun and fishing road. |
December 27, 2011, 07:04 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
There should be no restriction on legal carry, for a Law abiding citizen, in any federal, state or local government facility or grounds except where no-one (even general Law Enforcement) can carry. This would be inside the confinement area of a jail, mental hospital, or inside a courtroom whle it is in session. Those places have a reason to restrict carry, the rest don't.
The PO is the PO, and should be like any other place that you do business. If someone has a property that does not recognize my right to carry, I just do not do business with that person/company. Unfortunately, with the government there are few alternatives for what they offer. How long is it going to take for the PO and all the other government facilities that legal carry is not a threat. Criminals intent on mayhem do not care what the laws are, they will do what they want regardless of the law. |
December 27, 2011, 07:14 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,476
|
Quote:
The USPS has a section of Federal law that specifically applies to them and allows them to ban firearms with no exceptions. I don't agree that this is right, but they DO have the law backing them to do it. The VA hospitals, on the other hand, are using 18 USC 930. That happens to be the section of the U.S. Code that includes an exemption for "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." However, the VA Police (yes, they all have their own police departments) do NOT recognize the exemption. I tried to discuss it with a shift supervisor at my VA hospital, and he falt out refused to even consider reading the law. In their minds, the law says "No weapons ... period" and that's the way they'll treat it. There didn't used to be signs on the property at the VA where I go, and I had spoken with a captain on their force about being able to leave a range bag in the car while inside, so I could then continue across town to the range after an appointment. That was fine then, as long as I didn't bring any guns inside the building. About a year or eighteen months ago, signs went up at ALL the driveway entrances, and now it is very much NOT allowed to have a firearm anywhere on the property. There are similar signs at the Social Security office ... also citing 18 USC 930. The guard there won't discuss the exemption, either. (In that case, I'm sure he's following instructions and thinking is above his pay grade, so I'm not blaming him.) Obviously, someone, somewhere, somehow has to get our gummint to start following the laws IT enacted. If carrying a firearm for self-defense with a license/permit issued by your state to do so isn't a "lawful purpose," I'd really REALLY like to know why not. Link to the law, for those who have not read it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...0----000-.html See (d)(3) |
|
December 27, 2011, 10:08 PM | #9 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2, 2011
Posts: 4
|
The part that bugs me, and maybe someone can explain or point me to some authority, is how can US 930 be used to prevent all weapons on gov property? There is a definition of what a "Federal Facility" is just a few paragraphs down at 930 (g)(1):
(g) As used in this section: (1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties. Maybe I'm missing something someplace, but seems a bit odd that an entire paragraph seems to be missing from the interpretation? |
December 27, 2011, 11:57 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,476
|
Quote:
And then there's the fact, as you point out, that the driveways and parking lots do not meet the definition in the law they cite for what constitutes a 'Federal facility." I would LOVE to test it, but I don't have enough money to pay the lawyers, and I'm not in a position to be able to risk losing my RKBA if the gummint's lawyers are smarter than my lawyer. |
|
September 18, 2012, 09:06 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
|
So anyone know where this lawsuit stands?
|
September 18, 2012, 09:21 PM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I did a quick Google of the case name and didn't come up with anything more recent than April of 2011, well before even the OP.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
September 20, 2012, 09:54 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
In order to believe that such a prohibition on firearms enhances public safety you have to believe that someone intent on committing a violent act would not do so because of the prohibition.
The government must prove that the regulation in question furthers a governmental interest. If public safety is the interest they are using then they must prove that it is furthered. If a place is so sensitive that the government may ban all firearms shouldn't that place be protected by some type of security force? I've never seen a guard at my local post office. |
September 20, 2012, 10:18 PM | #14 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
It was on or about the 2nd of Sept. that I last checked the docket. There was nothing since last April.
Upon review, a few minuted ago, it appears that Mrs. Bonidy has had a change of heart and has asked to be dropped from the case. That stipulation, by all parties, was made on the 5th. The Court agreed, and ordered the plaintiff severed on the 6th. |
December 4, 2012, 11:36 PM | #15 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
So... Failure to check this case has resulted in not seeing the latest movement. An MSJ by the defendants and cross-MSJ by the plaintiffs. Thanks to Krucam at MDShooters for the heads-up (and RECAP is still not working on this particular case).
Quote:
|
|
December 6, 2012, 01:26 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Can you translate that?
|
May 12, 2013, 12:07 AM | #17 |
Member
Join Date: July 21, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 17
|
Stumbled on this thread looking for an update on the case. Man, reading those motions from the gun-grabbing USPS makes my stomach turn into knots. They are just outright LIARS.
Especially when compared to the TRUTHFUL motions made by the Bonidy's legal team. Any further updates? TFred |
May 12, 2013, 12:57 AM | #18 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
My complaining to the RECAP folks have finally worked! The full docket is now available at the Internet Archive link. So here is what has happened since early December:
Quote:
Suffice it to say that there will be a motions hearing (for the "dueling" MSJ's) on June 18, 2013. Then we will wait. Jim? Sorry I didn't see your response. Do you remember what part you wanted translated? |
|
May 12, 2013, 11:08 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Nope. I can't sorry. Maybe I've read enough of this strange language called legalese to follow it better, or maybe I don't know where I got lost anymore
|
May 12, 2013, 01:23 PM | #20 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Ah well... Not too sure I'd help much, though. Remember, I'm a rank amateur!
|
May 13, 2013, 08:27 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
July 10, 2013, 06:51 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Federal judge: Post Office violated man's rights by banning gun from parking lot
The Denver Post reports a favorable ruling in Bonidy v USPS. |
July 10, 2013, 07:19 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Yeah, of a sort.
Quote:
|
|
July 10, 2013, 09:18 PM | #24 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This is a "half-win" for the case. More importantly, the Judge has allowed for Sec. 1988 costs.
Frankly, I think we should take the win and move on. We'll see what the Government will do, within 45 days. |
July 11, 2013, 06:16 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
It will take a few more cases to get parking lot carry at post offices the general rule or an appeal of this case to a higher level, as this decision only applies to one person at one post office.
|
|
|