A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.
The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.
Now do courthouses and see how well that goes.
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle
…specifically hers.
Restrictions on carry in court houses would likely pass the Bruen test.
I don’t see any reason why a court should be treated any differently though.
Well yeah, the Courts make up rules and tests to advance whatever agenda is on the docket. They work backwards from the result they want.
We all do that. Whether we’re aware of it or not. Some of us are more aware of it than others.
What historical analog can you point to that wouldn’t also apply to post offices?
Banks
Banks are private entities. Apples and oranges.
You know what else is public? Courthouses.
Florida is such a shit hole.
We’re not “such a shit hole”. We’re an exquisite shit hole.
Depressing notion: Florida is the shit hole the rest of the country could easily become
in Florida
surprise! ;)
Edit: Ha ha, downvoted…Florida Man is watching!
We look at Florida the way the rest of the world looks at us.
Yeah, Florida made itself such a reputation, that when there was an article that the law about financial disclosure of politicians passed it just raised questions “what’s the catch?”. People are not used to seeing anything positive coming from that state.
law about financial disclosure of politicians
I’m actually in Florida (but on an Aussie Lemmy instance); you wouldn’t believe the number of politicians, mostly from wealthy beach communities, who are vacating their offices because of that law. It’s a total shit show.
We should make sure it’s also unconstitutional to block guns at:
- Courthouses
- GOP conventions
- Political rallies
- NRA conventions
Jesus Christ. Can you imagine families of the defendant and victim along with the jury all being armed when the verdict gets read at a murder trial?
I’ve been a juror on a murder trial and even with current regulations banning guns, we got armed escorts out the back of the building after the verdict.
The NRA is not part of the government. The constitution does and should have absolutely zero say in what they can and can not bar from their events.
With the exception of the courthouse, those examples are privately owned locations which can currently not allow firearms to their whim. Courthouse gun-free zones are constitutional and reaffirmed via Bruen.
The 3 other examples are: Theaters, arenas, public events reserved via permit, etc.
Depending on the state, any private location can choose to allow firearms and some states have the rule of law in that. In states where disallowing firearms does not have the rule of law, the individual going against the wishes of the location or event can be asked to leave under threat of trespassing as an unwelcomed individual.
Opening up those locations to firearms would also negate all other laws that ban carry on private property or otherwise public properties reserved by a private party as none would qualify as a constitutional gun-free zone.
Oh I’m sure that’s coming.
I wonder how the court would respond to a petition to allow firearms in court rooms. It’s a god-given American freedom, guaranteed by the second amendment right?
It would respond that there are valid reasons not to allow guns in courthouses, which is true.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that’s debatable. There certainly were when sending money was a thing but now, I think I agree with the court now. I wouldn’t strongly disagree with keeping the ban either though.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that’s debatable
All it takes is one guy with a gun that’s pissed off about a lost package.
That’s true literally everywhere. Pissed at cashier at McDonald’s, pissed at a driver on the street, …
Maybe don’t give guns to people with anger issues.
As for whether there are good reasons to ban guns in post offices, that’s debatable.
All it takes is one guy with a gun that’s pissed off about a lost package.
That’s true literally everywhere.
Yep, including Post Offices.
Yep, which is why you can’t annul 2A by saying there is some small reason to not have them everywhere.
If you want to repeal the 2A, pass a new ammendment. Of course you can’t because most people are not irrationally scared of guns.
Cool, so the place that mass shootings in the US began, and coined its own phrase, now must allow armed nut jobs inside. What could go wrong!?
The USPS has been abused by DeJoy, another trump appointee, who filled the fleet with more gas vehicles with less efficiency than previous models. That and removing public mail boxes for “reasons that totally didn’t have to do with mail-in voting helping Democrats win elections, promise.”
It wasn’t just blue boxes, he also shut down sorting machines, slowing mail processing in another attempt to delay mail-in ballots. Luckily we weren’t sending these off to get sorted at the plant and would take them to the town hall directly which probably helped circumvent a lot of late ballots. Can’t say this was done in every office but in my local area I know we did that.
Edit: a word
It may have a little to do with voting, but it’s ultimately just the logistics lobby flexing their influence to further weaken the USPS. End game is privatization of the mail for the short term, but ideally dissolution of the service altogether to remove the public option that helps keep consumer shipping prices in check.
The timing of a Trump crony shutting down mail sorting machines during the largest mail in election in history shortly after being appointed by Trump isn’t a coincidence. I agree with the rest of your statement, though.
Quite literally all but 1 came after the 1972 ban.
Also yet another bootlicking judge leaving the guy charged with nothing but resisting arrest.
now must allow armed nut jobs inside
What do you imagine was blocking such people from carrying in the first place? A sign?
“Well shit Jethro. Sign says it right there. ‘No nutty gunners allowed.’ Let’s go put our shit back in the truck. 'Parently the libs won’t ‘allow’ us to shoot the place up. Dang it!”
People like you are why our politicians waste political capital on bullshit laws instead of working towards real solutions. You actually believe carry bans are effective? Ignorant at best, a childish conception of human behavior, and that’s me being charitable.
“Well, by golly I don’t like it! A ban should do nicely! Put those bad people in their place for once!”
Yeah. Worked for alcohol, abortion and drugs, didn’t it?
the place that mass shootings in the US began
Fuck are you on about? I know, bag on Florida, score internet points, feel righteous. Getting that dopamine hit? Feeling smart?
Know why you hear so much crazy shit about Florida?
We got 21.7 million people here, third most populous state in the union. (A million is “a lot” for those of you lacking math.) Yeah, we gonna have some fruits and nuts.
We got “sunshine laws”, a liberal idea, one I adore, that allows free reporting of crime and much more.
Florida began its tradition of openness back in 1909 with the passage of Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes or the “Public Records Law.” This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Florida Legislature.
Perhaps we should rescind that? Take the wind out of the sails for people like you?
We got a nut case governor, who is certainly going to lose his next election. LOL, we can’t do worse.
Where you from? Bet money I can bag on your state as hard or harder.
A lot to unpack here but I’ll just focus on this;
the place that mass shootings in the US began
The term “going postal” is what they’re referring to.
And that started after carry ban laws were passed
Removed by mod
Freedom is scary
I’m pretty free and never have to fear that the jackass in front of me on the highway will pull a gun if I look at him wrong. Crazy how a gun isn’t necessary for freedom.
Removed by mod
No you see you have it backwards. I’m not afraid of psychos with guns because I live in a country with somewhat sane firearm laws.
The guy who pulled the gun on me in Boston lived in fear though.
Weird how that works.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
What do you imagine was blocking such people from carrying in the first place? A sign?
It’s this simple: if it’s legal to carry a gun somewhere then you have no idea which armed people are responsible, sane gun owners; if it’s illegal to carry a gun somewhere, then anyone with a gun is therefore not a sane, responsible gun owner, which is really damn good to know before they are pointing the gun at someone.
No it doesn’t prevent crazy people with guns, but it let’s you know that anyone with a gun is a threat and measures should be taken immediately.
Most of the time you just have no idea which people are armed, concealed carry is popular. Most criminals also carry concealed rather than open, obviously. Sure, if you gave all post office employees X-Ray Spex so they could see the concealed weapons carried by these criminals, your logic would be sound. Unfortunately X-Ray Spex is a band, not a functional product for seeing through clothing, we still need the TSA machines for that.
Right, it’s not 100% effective for sure, but it’s better than nothing. Look, if someone perfectly conceals their weapon it’s the same thing as if it’s legal. No one had any chance to react between them going for their weapon and then getting a shot off.
But if, with all the adrenaline in their system because of what they are planning, they slip up, that’s where the difference is between legal and illegal concealed carry. If it’s legal I don’t know if they are about to commit murder or not, but when it’s illegal then I know they have bad intentions from the moment I see it.
I could go into much more depth here, but I think this is really the gist of my point. I’m not anti-gun, by the way, or trying to achieve 100% safety from guns. But I do feel like a post office isn’t somewhere a gun needs to be.
if someone perfectly conceals their weapon it’s the same thing as if it’s legal.
Generally, and this happens often and nobody knows, but what if say a mass shooter shows up? Then the legality of carrying starts to matter, he is “free” to attack (free in that he knows it is a suicide so he is free from care regarding legal reprocussions), I on the other hand could face legal consequence for defending.
But if, with all the adrenaline in their system because of what they are planning
Damn dude what are post offices like in your area? Mine don’t induce production of adrenaline, it’s mostly just standing in line.
that’s where the difference is between legal and illegal concealed carry.
Well no, that’d be a permit in most states that defines the difference b/t legal and illegal carry.
If it’s legal I don’t know if they are about to commit murder or not, but when it’s illegal then I know they have bad intentions from the moment I see it.
No, you can’t see the permit at all, and you can’t see a concealed gun. You won’t know if they have either.
By this logic concealed carry would be acceptable and if someone shows you their gun they are a threat. Which is always illegal already.
Not by any logic I know but let’s hear it.
Cool, now defend desantis
The thing is that the experiment you imagine --implementing common-sense gun-reform-- has been run hundreds of times in other countries and the result was not, as you hypothesize, that suddenly they were overrun by bad guys with guns who don’t care about gun laws, but rather was that they saw precipitous declines in gun violence and gun-related deaths.
Basically, your hypothesis, which you and others take for granted as evidently true, is objectively incorrect, and has been shown to be so many times. What does a rational actor do when their hypothesis is shown to be incorrect? Do they continue to defend it? Help me make sense of your thinking, because what it looks like to me is a complete refusal to confront and accept reality.
Going postal now legal in Florida.
Removed by mod
killing people is still murder in Florida, which is a crime
No, no, and no. If your are president you can totally murder and it is not a crime unless you are impeached and convicted - heard from a source that is considered reliable in Florida.
Removed by mod
I dunno, some people are claiming to have “total immunity.” Big people, important people. Some tell me the most important.
Removed by mod
Isn’t Florida a stand your ground state?
“I’m in danger…”
Removed by mod
Slow down there, George Zimmerman.
Those skittles and hoodie were so much more dangerous than any gun.
Still don’t get how he got off in that case
Trayvon Martin was black and it’s Florida. I think it’s pretty much that simple.
Removed by mod
And you don’t see any problem with that, even though he did kill an innocent and unarmed person?
Removed by mod
I see. So OJ Simpson also did not murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend, correct?
Removed by mod
You realize that means he’s found innocent by a bunch of people who think like him. That doesn’t make his logic and people’s acceptance of it ok. Hell back in the day a jury of peers would find a slave guilty for running away.
Removed by mod
Yes, if kid runs up and knocks your drink out of your hand, kill that fool! Fight back!
Removed by mod
There are many other common everyday items in society that can kill people if misused, yet they are not illegal in the post office.
Are these other common everyday items purpose built for killing someone?
Are these other common everyday items purpose built for killing someone?
Killing multiple someones from across the room…?
Removed by mod
Wrong.
Removed by mod
Lmao, what were guns invented for if not to kill things? And which everyday object in the post office was equally invented to kill people?
It was your second paragraph that got you the downvotes. And/or missing the joke
Downvotes aren’t necessarily disagreements. Sometimes they’re just about helping other people invest their time better.
It’s a joke.
This is a ridiculous ruling, but the reason the ban on guns in post offices makes many gun owners so angry is that unlike pretty much any other no-gun zone laws, it includes all of the property, including the parking lot.
So if a licensed person removes their gun and leaves it in the car so they can go into the post office, they’ve still committed a felony by parking there.
So instead they’ll park in the street. And if the lot is mostly empty and there’s a car parked in the street in front of the post office, it’s a bright neon sign to thieves that breaking into that car will score them a gun.
Turns out there’s a surprisingly simple way to avoid that whole situation…
Oh man, i lol’d hard at this comment–thank you! 🥂
Some people are required to carry firearms. If your job is armed security, you shouldn’t have a potential felony charge for going to the post office after work and dropping a letter in the night drop with your gun locked in the car.
Just have federal buildings follow the laws of the states they’re in regarding the definition of premises for firearms. That is - apply it to the buildings, but not to the cars in the parking lot.
You shouldnt take the gun you use for work home. That would solve it.
What’s a more secure place for a firearm? Unattended in a locker or actively in the possession of the person licensed to have it?
Locker 100%
How so? Where do you keep your wallet? How about your keys?
The most secure place to store something isn’t to leave it unattended. It’s to actively have it on your person.
Do you take everything valuable from your house and your car with you from wherever you go? Or do you just lock them up and leave them unattended? Lol
The most secure place to keep something is to leave it locked up in a safe place. A person can get robbed…even if they have a gun, lol
I don’t take my wallet and keys with me to secure them. I take them with me because there is a good chance I’ll want to use them.
See you think that. But I don’t think you know the people I know. Even the military locks up guns when they aren’t in use.
Or, and I know this is radical, lock your job weapon up at your office.
FWIW, the amount of security guardsin Florida is pretty small at 0.4032%. I don’t know the percent of those who carry for work, but the number of cops that carried (all data 20/21/22) was also small at 0.246%. Combined, that gets us to the measurable number of Job Guns at .649% of the population in 21/22.
The idea that these people’s hindrances should even be acknowledged, let alone come into consideration when making or tossing out laws, is fucking absurd.
That’s common to all federal property though. I’ve literally never been to a federal property that wasn’t posted for no guns anywhere on the property.
Not all. They carved out an exception for National Parks that has the land adopting the rules of the state in which they’re located, with the firearm bans only in place in buildings. They need to do the same with Corps of Engineers parks and post offices.
So, the exception. And it’s wilderness area.
Wilderness Area is an entirely different designation from a national park. They aren’t administered by the park service but instead by the Forest Service and they don’t typically come with amenities/facilities apart from trailhead parking lots, usually a trail system and sometimes designated campsites and the like. Just FYI. Not that it really matters in this context.
Well yeah, except all of the interior land management agencies have wildernesses they mandate. Park, Forest, BLM, and even Fish and Wildlife.
Sooooo, you just leave your gun at home since there is no good reason to carry it around everywhere?
Seriously what’s up with Americans and police? In other countries people trust the police because frankly, they can, but also frankly, because they’re not insane. Yes, insane, because the obsession people have with guns is insane,and the obsession with safety and freedom is insane as well
It’s about consistency of laws. Depending on whether you park in the lot or 15-feet away in the street you’re either compliant with the law or subject to a 10-year prison sentence.
This is the problem with having an honest discussion about firearms policies. The reason gun owners refuse to work with the other side for some easy wins (universal background checks, expansion of NICS, enforcement of ownership restrictions, etc) is because the anti-gun crowd won’t take a minor victory and jumps straight to the “You’re a fucking crazy redneck” argument instead of talking about realistic solutions and what will be most effective. They let their idea of perfect be the enemy of good, while simultaneously making arguments from a place of profound ignorance regarding firearms, and the laws we do end up with in liberal states ban things like thumb-holes in stocks or require technology that doesn’t exist.
Straw purchases are still stupidly easy because the political left is frothing about firearms that are used in fewer homicides than blunt objects, a “gun show loophole” that doesn’t even exist (an FFL must still do background checks if selling off-site), and muzzle decides designed to prevent hearing damage from firearms that are still louder than a jackhammer.
Meanwhile 99-dollar zinc guns designed and used for murder are sold in piles to straw buyers who then sell them to convicted criminals and nothing is done about it.
These people are out of their fucking minds. Nothing’s ever enough.
Imagine waking up and the axis of your whole identity is guns. You don’t feel comfortable unless you can have a gun with you everywhere. You worry constantly about your guns getting taken away.
What a miserable life.
This whole Bruen standard is revisionist history at it’s worst too. For example states were straight up banning conceal carry in the decades after the Constitution was written and ratified.
If we did that now they’d come up with some bullshit story about Paul Revere or something.
Also their logic for everything doesn’t scale. They’ll say, “sure! post offices are a-ok!” but then be like “well obviously you shouldn’t be able to bring a loaded handgun into the cabin of a commercial flight, or attend a presidential speech with a sniper rifle.” And their gun friendly politicians definitely ban guns at their rallies and conventions.
And everybody loves being an originalist on the issue until you start talking about the whole “well regulated militia” component of the amendment.
I live in the EU now and sure we have illegal guns in this country, but the fact is that the firearm homicide rate per capita is 27 times higher in the US than it is here. And gun suicides rates are over 30 times higher per capita in the US. When someone gets shot here it’s big fucking news. You don’t have to worry about some kind of drunken social transgression erupting into gunfire.
The US is fucking ridiculous on this topic.
It’s easy to understand the US if you look at politicians like race drivers… With sponsor patches on their suits.
OK, let’s roll it back.
Now I can’t carry in a Post Office. Sound good?
Now how do you propose to enforce that law? Perhaps a sign on the door saying, “No bad guys allowed.”
So weird seeing comments like yours. Let me quote Sir Terry Pratchett, wild conservative (LMAO having wrote that…)
Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked, too, if only there had been enough coppers – say, three per citizen.
Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw, though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing, and it was this: criminals don’t obey the law. It’s more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn’t believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.
Some citizens took the not-unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers.
And from another great book of his:
A sign attached to the tower read: “Dijabringabeeralong: Check your Weapons.” “Yep, still got all mine, no worries,” said Mad.
For those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so liberal, he was writing about trans rights before you kids ever heard those words put together.
Uhhhhhh, who put a bug up your bonnet?
Just another person confused about the difference between seeing “how things are” and rationalizing it as “how things have to be.” Nevermind a simple look at the mass shootings by country correlate very well with reasonable gun control laws.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation (see comparison)
No need to bring Sir Terry Pratchett into this.
So… your source to back up your point is an excerpt from a fictional book written by someone who’s expertise is in writing fiction?
Personally, I try not to take the word of someone who is not an expert, or at least versed in that particular area. Just because Pratchett was very a progressive writer doesn’t mean his opinions on gun control should be taken for anything more than his own personal position.
And if we’re just going to cite his fiction as his opinion, we have to assume he was also pro-police violence. I don’t know how much Discworld you’ve red, but even as Vimes progressed as a character and got better in a lot of ways, he always ended up resolving the issue by skirting the actual law and bending the rules to fit his purpose. Often he would espouse how much easier his job and the city would be if he wasn’t restricted by the law. Not everyone else, they still need to follow the law, but Sam Vimes knows better. There were even times when Pratchett would start to push back on that idea like he was going to have Vimes actually understand that police aren’t special and should be as answerable to the law as anyone… then the conflict would always be resolved by Vimes going outside the law and taking it into his own hands. He never learned that lesson. Quite the opposite actually.
So for those unfamiliar, Pratchett was so conservative, he was writing about rogue cops taking the law into their own hands before you kids ever heard those words put together.
Post office workers’ safety ruled uNcONStItuTiONaL
Jesus fucking Christ guys
I need a gun when I go to the post office to protect myself from the postal workers when they decide to go postal.
Similarly, going postal is back on the table!
The case was literally about a postal worker… I was flabbergasted haha.
Do you think the people who decided to shoot up their place of work would change their mind because the government made guns illegal in their place of work? Like the only reason they’re not comitting to a mass shooting and suicide is because they may get arrested for carrying in a no carry zone? I can’t really see this making going postal any more a thing than it is currently.
Bunch of scared insecure children on the right. Recommend a listen to Malcolm Gladwell 6 part series on gun violence for the history of the rights obsession with 2A.
I WILL FIGHT FOR MY FREEDOM IN THE POST OFFICE
NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE MY GUNS
/s
So the reason she used in her ruling is that the law about not having guns in post offices was passed in 1972. Which is pants on head crazy. Under that reasoning it’s not about what powers to regulate there were traditionally. It’s about specific case details, like qualified immunity. The federal government has absolutely maintained an ability to say no guns in sensitive areas from day 1 of the USA. But because they didn’t get around to post offices until 1972, it’s illegal to make guns illegal in post offices.
Which is not the standard SCOTUS set in Bruen. According to their standard it would be sufficient to prove early Americans would approve of such laws by finding similar laws. Not requiring that they had the same exact law.
