Post office

[puma guy]

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

[jmra]

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

[rotor]

For informational purposes, would local law enforcement have the ability to do anything for a post office parking lot violation? Would it have to be a federal agent? I would bet that 99% of people with a gun in their glove box do not know that this is a violation of federal law. Same question if someone carried concealed in a post office. What level of government authority would be making the arrest? FBI? Local police? Not advocating breaking the law, just questioning.

[puma guy]

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

As stated IANAL. I read it as applying to the Regulation banning firearms in PO parking lots. Since the lawsuit was filed for Avon the court applies the ruling to it, but the Regulation itself also. If not the Regulation would still apply to every other post office in the US and every individual citizen, except Avon and Mr. Bonidy respectively. Maybe it does. Seems illogical, but then again logic and law are oxymoronic when the terms are used together. Need a lawyer to interpret I guess.

[jmra]

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

As stated IANAL. I read it as applying to the Regulation banning firearms in PO parking lots. Since the lawsuit was filed for Avon the court applies the ruling to it, but the Regulation itself also. If not the Regulation would still apply to every other post office in the US and every individual citizen, except Avon and Mr. Bonidy respectively. Maybe it does. Seems illogical, but then again logic and law are oxymoronic when the terms are used together. Need a lawyer to interpret I guess.

The decision seems very clear - the court said that the defendant had to provide the plaintiff with a means of parking in the parking lot with his firearm in his car. The court suggested a permit. If the court intended to strike down the law then the decision would have been worded much differently. This case addressed specific issues unique to the location of the post office and unique to the plaintiff.

[puma guy]

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

As stated IANAL. I read it as applying to the Regulation banning firearms in PO parking lots. Since the lawsuit was filed for Avon the court applies the ruling to it, but the Regulation itself also. If not the Regulation would still apply to every other post office in the US and every individual citizen, except Avon and Mr. Bonidy respectively. Maybe it does. Seems illogical, but then again logic and law are oxymoronic when the terms are used together. Need a lawyer to interpret I guess.

The decision seems very clear - the court said that the defendant had to provide the plaintiff with a means of parking in the parking lot with his firearm in his car. The court suggested a permit. If the court intended to strike down the law then the decision would have been worded much differently. This case addressed specific issues unique to the location of the post office and unique to the plaintiff.

I am not trying to be argumentative but, per the language in the ruling accommodating Mr. Bonidy by issuing a permit is not allowed by Regulation, thus the ruling to allow Mr. Bonidy to store his firearm in his vehicle. Am I reading that wrong?

[jmra]

Had to read the decision again to refresh my memory. The reason the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff is this case is the Avon Post Office does not provide delivery service to the public. The only way the plaintiff could get his packages was to go to the post office. The post office has 57 parking places but there are on 5 public spaces for on street parking and those are closed when there is more than 2" of snow. IIRC, the plaintiff also had a disability that prevented him from accessing the post office from the closest public parking lot. It was these factors that led to the decision that a means to park in the post office lot had to be provided to the plaintiff. The court recommended issuing the plaintiff a permit to park in the lot with a firearm in his vehicle.

[jmra]

I am not a lawyer but the way I interpreted the ruling last year was for all post office parking lots. I don't think Federal District court rulings apply to one distinct location for an individual. Need some lawyer help, maybe Charles will weigh in.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/usa.pdf See page 3 item 10

IIRC, the judges in this case gave the defendant the option of giving the plaintiff a permit allowing him to park in the parking lot with his firearm. If their ruling negated the law then there would not have been a need for the permit or the recommendation of a permit in the ruling. You need to read the actual decision - there has been a lot of people who jumped the gun with opinions on the decision who read headlines instead of the actual decision.

As stated IANAL. I read it as applying to the Regulation banning firearms in PO parking lots. Since the lawsuit was filed for Avon the court applies the ruling to it, but the Regulation itself also. If not the Regulation would still apply to every other post office in the US and every individual citizen, except Avon and Mr. Bonidy respectively. Maybe it does. Seems illogical, but then again logic and law are oxymoronic when the terms are used together. Need a lawyer to interpret I guess.

The decision seems very clear - the court said that the defendant had to provide the plaintiff with a means of parking in the parking lot with his firearm in his car. The court suggested a permit. If the court intended to strike down the law then the decision would have been worded much differently. This case addressed specific issues unique to the location of the post office and unique to the plaintiff.

I am not trying to be argumentative but, per the language in the ruling accommodating Mr. Bonidy by issuing a permit is not allowed by Regulation, thus the ruling to allow Mr. Bonidy to store his firearm in his vehicle. Am I reading that wrong?

Because of the ruling the defendant would ultimately have to modify the regulations to allow for the permits. This may have been done already but not yet published. I'm sure they will do their best to bury the change as deeply in the regs as possible.

"the public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy’s liberty can be accommodated by modifying the Regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to “have ready access to essential postal services” provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that 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."
Again the ruling is a result of conditions specific to the Avon Post Office. I don't see anything in the ruling that broadens the scope of the ruling. IMHO the ruling hinged on the fact that this post office does not provide delivery services. If it had the ruling would have been in favor of the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff would not have sued if delivery service was available.

A quote from the plaintiffs lawyer:
“We are pleased the court struck down the Postal Service’s regulation as it applies to the Avon parking lot,” said William Perry Pendley of Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF); MSLF represents Mr. Bonidy and the group.
This lawyer clearly states that the decision applies to the Avon parking lot.

[jmra]

http://mylegalheat.wordpress.com/catego ... tegorized/

"The problem is the court issued a very limited ruling. So narrow in fact that the ruling apparently only applies to Mr. Bonidy and the parking lot of the Avon Post Office, under the specific circumstances set forth in the case. Unless your name is Tab Bonidy and you are looking to carry a gun in the parking lot of the Avon Post Office, this case doesn’t really help you.
As evidenced by the court’s order, the court doesn’t attempt to overturn 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l ) nor does it extend its ruling anywhere outside of the Avon post office. The judicial district court ruling on this case was one of 94 different judicial district courts in America. Although the Bonidy decision sets great precedent, it is unfortunately not binding on the other 93 districts. Unless you want to be the test case for your district, you probably don’t want to start carrying on postal property.
In sum, even though the Bonidy case is great and we all wish it overturned the prohibition against carrying on postal property, it simply doesn’t. For most of us, it is still every bit as illegal to possess a firearm on postal property today as it has been since 1972. Now that you know, tell your friends."

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1642
The district court judge held that the carrying of guns can be prohibited in US Post Office buildings but not in Post Office parking lots, or at least not in this particular parking lot in Colorado. The US Postal Service appealed as did Bonidy in a cross-appeal.

[puma guy]

I am not trying to be argumentative but, per the language in the ruling accommodating Mr. Bonidy by issuing a permit is not allowed by Regulation, thus the ruling to allow Mr. Bonidy to store his firearm in his vehicle. Am I reading that wrong?

Because of the ruling the defendant would ultimately have to modify the regulations to allow for the permits. This may have been done already but not yet published. I'm sure they will do their best to bury the change as deeply in the regs as possible. [/quote]

I read some additional information regarding this decision and it is quite narrow in the application as you stated. I did read that the judge sort of leaves the door open for another stab at it for relief. Since the Avon PO is unique in that it doesn't deliver mail and requires patrons to pick it up or use the provided PO boxes I wonder if the same relief applies to post offices similar to the Avon and their patrons.

[puma guy]

Saw this on another thread by DaveT and it got me to thinking. (sometimes a bad thing)
The Colorado decision was based on limited postal service. We all have limited postal service since all the corner postal boxes were removed. While you can leave mail on your mail box to be picked up if you have mass mailings such as holiday cards or invitations such as for a wedding you have to take them to the post office. My mail carrier is not going to pick up the 250 wedding invitations about to be mailed for our daughter. I hope this goes through.

DaveT http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... pdate.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jmra]

Saw this on another thread by DaveT and it got me to thinking. (sometimes a bad thing)
The Colorado decision was based on limited postal service. We all have limited postal service since all the corner postal boxes were removed. While you can leave mail on your mail box to be picked up if you have mass mailings such as holiday cards or invitations such as for a wedding you have to take them to the post office. My mail carrier is not going to pick up the 250 wedding invitations about to be mailed for our daughter. I hope this goes through.

DaveT http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... pdate.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The decision lists a number of factors besides reduced services. One in particular was the lack of public parking around the post office and the fact that much of the public parking available was closed during much of the winter. I think you might be hard pressed to find many POs that meet all of the criteria stated in the decision.

[puma guy]

Saw this on another thread by DaveT and it got me to thinking. (sometimes a bad thing)
The Colorado decision was based on limited postal service. We all have limited postal service since all the corner postal boxes were removed. While you can leave mail on your mail box to be picked up if you have mass mailings such as holiday cards or invitations such as for a wedding you have to take them to the post office. My mail carrier is not going to pick up the 250 wedding invitations about to be mailed for our daughter. I hope this goes through.

DaveT http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... pdate.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The decision lists a number of factors besides reduced services. One in particular was the lack of public parking around the post office and the fact that much of the public parking available was closed during much of the winter. I think you might be hard pressed to find many POs that meet all of the criteria stated in the decision.

Yeah, I got all that. The fact remains we are all inconvenienced by the lack of offsite postal deposit alternatives. I hope the change goes through and none of us have to leave our CCW at home just to mail some letters or parcels or God forbid forget to leave it and somehow be outed while we drop letters in the parking lot box.