View Full Version : Bonidy loss at 10th Circuit: No carry in post offices or parking lots
Surprised to see no discussion of this here. Here's a link to the decision: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-1374.pdf
Basically, a publicly-accessible post office and its parking lot with no security whatsoever is considered "sensitive federal property" therefore the USPS's policy of "no guns 4 u" is permissible.
"Ignoring McDonald‘s command that the Second Amendment does not
protect 'second-class' rights, the Tenth Circuit held that '[t]he risk
inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second
Amendment right from other fundamental rights that have been held to be
evaluated under a strict scrutiny test, such as the right to marry and
the right to be free from viewpoint discrimination, which can be
exercised without creating a direct risk to others.'"
Great-Kazoo
06-29-2015, 19:48
If they had said Yes, one can carry in a P.O. It would open the door for CCW in All federal buildings.
Well with the new precedent set with gay marriage, new federal doors are about to be opened far and wide. This one definitely isn't over with.
Aloha_Shooter
06-29-2015, 23:36
Well with the new precedent set with gay marriage, new federal doors are about to be opened far and wide. This one definitely isn't over with.
Only the doors they want opened. The legal education system has been corrupted to ignore plain language or make up stuff that never existed when it suits them. I see the recent rulings on Obamacare and homosexual marriage as a return to ruling the way they want rather than following the actual text and precedent.
Zundfolge
06-30-2015, 11:03
Only the doors they want opened. The legal education system has been corrupted to ignore plain language or make up stuff that never existed when it suits them. I see the recent rulings on Obamacare and homosexual marriage as a return to ruling the way they want rather than following the actual text and precedent.
This can't be emphasized enough. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, we are now an Administrative/Bureaucratic state under a Judicial Oligarchy.
"The Law" is no longer beholden to the Constitution, it is no longer "immutable". It can be twisted and interpreted any way that those in power want it to be at any given moment (and this includes maintaining conflicting interpretations at the same time with no problem).
Only the doors they want opened. The legal education system has been corrupted to ignore plain language or make up stuff that never existed when it suits them. I see the recent rulings on Obamacare and homosexual marriage as a return to ruling the way they want rather than following the actual text and precedent.
This can't be emphasized enough. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, we are now an Administrative/Bureaucratic state under a Judicial Oligarchy.
"The Law" is no longer beholden to the Constitution, it is no longer "immutable". It can be twisted and interpreted any way that those in power want it to be at any given moment (and this includes maintaining conflicting interpretations at the same time with no problem).
Both of you are right on.
If they had said Yes, one can carry in a P.O. It would open the door for CCW in All federal buildings.
From my understanding the complaint relied on the fact that there is no security there to protect patrons of the post office like there are with courthouses etc, so I'm not sure a win would have spilled over to all federal buildings.
This can't be emphasized enough. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, we are now an Administrative/Bureaucratic state under a Judicial Oligarchy.
"The Law" is no longer beholden to the Constitution, it is no longer "immutable". It can be twisted and interpreted any way that those in power want it to be at any given moment (and this includes maintaining conflicting interpretations at the same time with no problem).
Depressing, but I think you are correct.
Zundfolge
07-02-2015, 19:21
To be honest, this ruling isn't going to change my post office visit procedures in he least (I visit a post office maybe once a year).
Concealed is concealed and unless you're setting up magnetometers you can go fornicate yourself ... sideways.
Chief_of_Scouts
07-04-2015, 09:20
...which can be exercised without creating a direct risk to others.'"
So, are they saying that my carrying a gun creates a "direct risk to others"? The only risk is to those that mean harm to me or those around me. By denying my right to carry, the true "direct risk" is to me and my loved ones.
The parking lot aspect makes for some interesting errand planning.
milwaukeeshaker
07-05-2015, 08:28
Not really. See post #9.
If they had said Yes, one can carry in a P.O. It would open the door for CCW in All federal buildings.
Bottom line right there. I visit our PO at least once a month, sometimes I carry, usually I don't. And sometimes I'm coming home from a range trip with a truckload. I just go in, get my mail, and leave. It's usually after hours anyway.
Stand by the PO boxes for five minutes and watch how 9 out of 10 people lose their temper over how there is nothing but junk mail in their PO Box and you start to see how the Post Office might be wary of firearms on premise.
milwaukeeshaker
07-05-2015, 20:33
And losing their temper means they might start shooting?? You sound like an ad for gun control inc.
And losing their temper means they might start shooting?? You sound like an ad for gun control inc.
You sound like an ad for a German open mic night at a comedy club.
milwaukeeshaker
07-06-2015, 17:58
I'm guessing tha I might have been insulted by this post, but I'm not sure, cause I really don't know what the heck the poster is trying to say.
.
You sound like an ad for a German open mic night at a comedy club.
I'm saying that your lack of sense of humor caused you to be unable to see that my post was in jest. While I made it a point to address your lack of sense of humor, I was not attempting to insult you.
Since you brought it up, I am a bit curious how, after years of discussion and interaction with me on this board, you assumed that I've flipped 180 degrees on my feelings on the Second Amendment and personal liberty.
hurley842002
07-06-2015, 20:12
I'm saying that your lack of sense of humor caused you to be unable to see that my post was in jest. While I made it a point to address your lack of sense of humor, I was not attempting to insult you.
Since you brought it up, I am a bit curious how, after years of discussion and interaction with me on this board, you assumed that I've flipped 180 degrees on my feelings on the Second Amendment and personal liberty.
I've started passing over his posts, I should probably just block him, but then someone would quote his nonsense, and i'd see it anyway, so kind of pointless.
milwaukeeshaker
07-07-2015, 07:03
Wasn't tying to insult you. Just telling you what it looks like. If it was meant as humor I missed it. My apologies.
I'm saying that your lack of sense of humor caused you to be unable to see that my post was in jest. While I made it a point to address your lack of sense of humor, I was not attempting to insult you.
Since you brought it up, I am a bit curious how, after years of discussion and interaction with me on this board, you assumed that I've flipped 180 degrees on my feelings on the Second Amendment and personal liberty.
milwaukeeshaker
07-07-2015, 07:07
So everyone else can post inflammatory, and argumentive posts, designed to elicit a response, or just simply stating a position not taken by the majority, I see them all the time, and I'll just bet you've done it a time or two, and I'M the bad guy. Really?
I've started passing over his posts, I should probably just block him, but then someone would quote his nonsense, and i'd see it anyway, so kind of pointless.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.