PDA

View Full Version : (MSLF)(USA) Bonidy v. United States Postal Service (3/21/16: cert DENIED)


Gray Peterson
10-06-2010, 11:27 AM
Mountain States Legal Foundation page on Bonidy v. United States Postal Service (http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/legal_cases.cfm?legalcaseid=231)

Looks like the complaint focuses on having a firearm in their vehicle only. Bio below:

Tab and Debbie Bonidy, who live in rural Colorado, where home mail service is not available, must drive 10 miles roundtrip to Avon to collect their mail. On arrival there, however, Mr. and Mrs. Bonidy, both of whom are licensed to carry a handgun and regularly carry a handgun for self-defense, are barred by Postal Service regulation from carrying a firearm or parking their vehicle, if it contains a firearm, on Postal Service property. On July 22, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Bonidy asked the Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw the regulation to permit them to exercise their Second Amendment rights. That request was denied on August 3, 2010.


In 2007, the Postal Service renewed a longstanding total ban on firearms on Postal Service property, which states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on Postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on Postal property, except for official purposes. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). This regulatory prohibition, which carries a $50 fine or imprisonment for 30 days, or both, is broader than the federal statute, which prohibits private possession of firearms in federal facilities, except those firearms carried “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3). This statutory exception does not apply in federal court facilities, where a total ban is enforced. 18 U.S.C. § 930(e)(1).
The Postal Service’s total ban on firearms possession impairs the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment because that right cannot be exercised when individuals are traveling to, from, or through Postal property because the Postal Service does not allow people to store a firearm safely in their vehicles. Anyone with a hunting rifle or shotgun in his car, or a handgun in his glove compartment for self-defense, violates the Postal Service ban by driving onto Postal Service property. Thus, the ban denies the right to keep and bear arms everywhere a law-abiding gun owner travels before and after visiting Postal Service property.

wildhawker
10-06-2010, 11:45 AM
:43:

choprzrul
10-06-2010, 11:48 AM
If chipped away at long enough, the wall of 2A rights oppression will fall. This is yet another example of the chipping away that is ongoing. Good to see and thank you for posting.

.

putput
10-06-2010, 12:07 PM
I'm sure that this isn't what the anti's were thinking when they thought we'd go postal... :D

Crom
10-06-2010, 12:12 PM
Excellent news. :43: Thanks Gray. The post office firearm ban seems to be very illogical as it only creates problems for law abiding citizens.

dantodd
10-06-2010, 12:19 PM
sensitive areas.

GrizzlyGuy
10-06-2010, 12:26 PM
Excellent! I can't wait to be able to edit the FAQ here:

Where/when are some places/times that I CAN NOT HAVE A FIREARM? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Where.2Fwhen_are_some_places.2Ftimes_that_I_CA N_NOT_HAVE_A_FIREARM.3F)


On the grounds of any K-12 school, college or university without written permission from the school's superintendent/president, designee or equivalent authority. (626.9 PC)

On post office property, including the parking lot and grounds, even if it is in a locked container (39 CFR 232.1(l))

...

:D

tango-52
10-06-2010, 12:32 PM
I always thought the "except for official purposes" was an interesting phrase to dig at. If I go to the Post Office to buy stamps, send a letter or pick up a parcel, aren't I there for official purposes? If, as part of my business, I have a CCW and am going to send business mail, aren't I there for my official business purposes? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Rossi357
10-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Just another "feel good" law, like the GFSZ.

stag1500
10-06-2010, 12:51 PM
If Palmer goes our way, shouldn't we have the right to carry on Federal property, including the Post Office?

Merle
10-06-2010, 12:53 PM
Nice.

We don't get home mail delivered here in Tahoe either (something about snow and not applying when you get 350+ inches a year) so we have to go to the Post Office. Fortunately the one I have to go to is in a strip mall so I just drop the gun on seat/floor.

However, there is that (d) section which exempts "for lawful purpose" which logically means if you're not commiting a crime, you'd be okay. But all the CCW instructors pretty much call it out as "not a LEO, don't carry" and I don't want to be the test case for this.

Either way I hope they win. (d) applies saying if you're legally carrying you're legally carrying, or a post office is ruled non-sensitive.

jpr9954
10-06-2010, 1:33 PM
I put up a post on this at my blog last night. It has links to the complaint as well as the letters sent and received from the USPS.

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/10/challenge-to-ban-on-firearms-on-postal.html

Note in the reply letter from Mary Anne Gibbons, General Counsel of the USPS, it is plainly stated that the Bonidys would not qualify under the "official purposes" exclusion.

She quotes a case from the 5th Circuit where their exclusion of guns in cars was upheld. However, I think a key difference is in the 5th Circuit it involved a postal employee and not a postal patron. I think it could be argued that the employee gave up some of his rights in his employment contract. Patrons make no such concession.

wildhawker
10-06-2010, 1:35 PM
jpr, good to see you here. I do enjoy reading your blog.

-Brandon

DannyInSoCal
10-06-2010, 1:38 PM
If post office employees were armed - People would have to go "postal" at the DMV or IRS instead...

tango-52
10-06-2010, 1:48 PM
If post office employees were armed - People would have to go "postal" at the DMV or IRS instead...

Keep in mind, it was only postal employees who went postal, not the customers.

yellowfin
10-06-2010, 1:57 PM
If chipped away at long enough, the wall of 2A rights oppression will fall. This is yet another example of the chipping away that is ongoing. Good to see and thank you for posting.Hopefully with the chipping away of that wall will be a chipping away at the governmental oppression in all forms. It really seems that gun rights are the only thing that's doing any good in that regard, nobody's effectively working on dismantling the other stuff that needs to be taken down like Social Security, income tax withholding, Commerce Clause abuse, etc.

CHS
10-06-2010, 2:20 PM
I can't wait until "sensitive places" finally gets defined as a place where there is already a secure armed perimeter in place and where entrants must be screened via some combination of pat-downs or metal detectors.

If the above doesn't apply, and it's a public place, it's not really sensitive now is it?

Anyone can literally just walk into a school with a gun. Not so sensitive.

Real walls do a lot better at keeping people out than invisible legislated walls made up of thin air.

NightOwl
10-06-2010, 2:23 PM
I always found this to be a hassle, when I lived in Idaho. I'd have to make a special trip when I needed to visit the post office, since I was armed the rest of the time. I'd usually start my day with it, so it was just there and back, rather than home-there-home-back to whatever I was doing.

I'll admit I did consider just leaving my pistol in my car parked on the public street, but it was a pretty major street and I had some concern that it might be waving a flag begging for someone to steal a gun.

bulgron
10-06-2010, 2:46 PM
I can't wait until "sensitive places" finally gets defined as a place where there is already a secure armed perimeter in place and where entrants must be screened via some combination of pat-downs or metal detectors.

If the above doesn't apply, and it's a public place, it's not really sensitive now is it?

Anyone can literally just walk into a school with a gun. Not so sensitive.

Real walls do a lot better at keeping people out than invisible legislated walls made up of thin air.

Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever happen. In Heller, the court held up a school as an example of a "sensitive place". Typically schools don't engage in pat-downs, have metal detectors or armed guards (although, of course, some do).

Kharn
10-06-2010, 2:54 PM
The schools in the DC metro area have metal detectors, multiple full-time police, etc.

jdberger
10-06-2010, 3:01 PM
sensitive areas.

Why does that make me think of certain LCAV counsel?.... :eek:

wash
10-06-2010, 3:12 PM
I resisted reading this post when I put the cursor over it and saw the first few words.

I thought what kind of case can they make against USPS?

Well, those lawyers did a hell of a job finding a plaintiff with standing!

Since they have to go to the post office to get their mail, it doesn't make sense for them to be prohibited in the parking lot.

It could be argued that the actual post office might be sensitive enough but probably not the parking lot.

I really like the sound of this case.

Gray Peterson
10-06-2010, 3:18 PM
I resisted reading this post when I put the cursor over it and saw the first few words.

I thought what kind of case can they make against USPS?

Well, those lawyers did a hell of a job finding a plaintiff with standing!

Since they have to go to the post office to get their mail, it doesn't make sense for them to be prohibited in the parking lot.

It could be argued that the actual post office might be sensitive enough but probably not the parking lot.

I really like the sound of this case.

It's being competently lawyered. Narrowly tailored and focused on the parking lot issues. MSLF seems to have their crap together in regards to RKBA cases.

bodger
10-06-2010, 3:36 PM
There is obviously an exemption for long guns being shipped through USPS, otherwise one would be subject to arrest for bringing in a firearm, even in a sealed package.

Glad to hear about this suit.

MindBuilder
10-06-2010, 4:23 PM
What if you don't have a car and have to walk to the post office or take a bus or cab? Then you can't leave your gun in the parking lot. If an elderly person has to walk places frequently, they may be an even softer and more attractive target than the rest of us, and therefore have even more need to carry protection.

Maestro Pistolero
10-06-2010, 4:28 PM
Like bdsmchs, I really would like to see sensitive places defined as places that are sensitive enough to screen everyone for firearms, and where the responsibility for the welfare of the disarmed is assumed by competent, trained individuals.

If a place is not sensitive enough to keep armed criminals out, then it cannot possibly be sensitive enough to keep out armed law abiding people.

CHS
10-06-2010, 10:31 PM
There is obviously an exemption for long guns being shipped through USPS, otherwise one would be subject to arrest for bringing in a firearm, even in a sealed package.

Glad to hear about this suit.

In fact, it's actually legal to ship handguns through the USPS as well, but just for dealers.

So if the USPS actively ships all manner of firearms all over the country, that kinda jives with their whole "no firearms" policy.

gunsmith
10-06-2010, 11:43 PM
jeepers! how many millions of gun owners have a handgun in their car??!! most would use common sense and think "its in a parking lot, not in the p.o" gun laws always seem to be written by morons

bigstick61
10-07-2010, 2:26 AM
If post office employees were armed - People would have to go "postal" at the DMV or IRS instead...

In some cases they used to be. Way back when mail carriers were issued Thompson SMGs in Utah. Apparently the Mormons still attacked government officials at times. Marines were also used as escorts in some places if I recall correctly.

N6ATF
10-07-2010, 10:19 AM
Interesting... you'd think the Mormons were happy about prohibition (the Tommy being the quintessential prohibition gun).

N6ATF
11-22-2010, 1:54 PM
They bumped it by putting out a new press release, it seems: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/22/lawsuit-filed-against-post-office-gun-ban/

Crom
11-22-2010, 2:38 PM
I'm not sure why they bumped it... I looked in PACER and there is nothing new. The last thing filed was the first amended complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.5.0.pdf) filed on October 25th.

uyoga
11-22-2010, 2:52 PM
Hope the Bonidys prevail.

navyinrwanda
03-21-2011, 7:20 PM
Hearing was held today before Judge Richard P. Matsch. Defendant USPS Motion to Dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.6.0.pdf) was granted (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.13.0.pdf) today (March 21, 2011).

Plaintiffs (Mountain States Legal Foundation) may file an amended complaint within 20 days by April 11, 2011.


Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

1:56 p.m. Court in session.

Plaintiffs Tab and Debbie Bonidy and defendant United Postal Service’s client representative Rod Eves are present.

Court’s preliminary remarks and disclosure pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C § 455.

Mr. Manley answers questions asked by the Court regarding case facts and claims with respect to the postal service firearms’ regulation.

Argument by Ms. Farby [6].
Argument by Mr. Manley.

ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, filed December 6, 2010 [6], is granted with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint (20 days) by April 11, 2011.

2:20 p.m. Court in recess.

Hearing concluded. Total time: 24 min.

Librarian
03-21-2011, 7:39 PM
From the introduction:... United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874, 875-86 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1714 (2010) (concluding that postal property “falls under the ‘sensitive places’ exception recognized by Heller”).

Because Heller forecloses plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge, there is no need for this Court to engage in any “independent” constitutional analysis of the USPS regulation. It is constitutional because the Supreme Court expressly said so in Heller.
I rather hope we get a clarification of 'sensitive places'. I don't think a post office is 'sensitive' merely because it is a "government building".

OleCuss
03-21-2011, 8:04 PM
Yeah, I have real trouble with the idea that a USPS office is a sensitive place.

BigFatGuy
03-21-2011, 8:04 PM
Wait... they file a lawsuit, and the judge takes 24 minutes to tell them to pound sand?

Is there a next step?

wildhawker
03-21-2011, 8:14 PM
I think this goes to appeal, is affirmed by the circuit court, then GVRed by USSC, though might be the first non-crim/GFSZ case before USSC, so that makes it more likely for cert (Nordyke might be there in parallel if it goes en banc, later if remanded by the panel).

N6ATF
03-21-2011, 8:27 PM
We should be able to file directly with SCOTUS if district and appeals courts are going to pathologically refuse to honor civil rights in order to delay long enough that SCOTUS turnover happens. Frack them and their little dogs too.

navyinrwanda
03-21-2011, 9:32 PM
From USA v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1714 (2010) (see attached appeals court opinion):


First, the Postal Service owned the parking lot where Dorosan's handgun was found, and its restrictions on guns stemmed from its constitutional authority as the property owner. This is not the unconstitutional exercise of police power that was the source of the ban addressed in Heller.

Moreover, the Postal Service used the parking lot for loading mail and staging its mail trucks. Given this usage of the parking lot by the Postal Service as a place of regular government business, it falls under the "sensitive places" exception recognized by Heller.

Finally, the Postal Service was not obligated by federal law to provide parking for its employees, nor did the Postal Service require Dorosan to park in the lot for work. If Dorosan wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban, he ostensibly could have secured alternative parking arrangements off site.

Thus, Dorosan fails to demonstrate that § 232.1(l) has placed any significant burden on his ability to exercise his claimed Second Amendment right.

(citations omitted)

Librarian
03-21-2011, 9:44 PM
From USA v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1714 (2010) (see attached appeals court opinion):

So, do you suppose Bonidys will reply something like " employees behind the counter and in the work area was the subject of Dorosan, public area and public parking are de novo, you need to do the analysis"?

wildhawker
03-21-2011, 9:55 PM
Ah, a government as proprietor case. I'm sure you're aware, but others may not be, of Eugene Volokh's work on the subject. USSC is going to have to weigh in [very] soon on its poorly-defined "sensitive places" doctrine and establish some sort of substantive guidance for lower courts.

A few links of note:

http://uclalawreview.org/?p=124

http://volokh.com/2009/10/16/government-as-proprietor-and-the-second-amendment/

http://volokh.com/2010/06/28/mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago-and-the-standard-of-review-for-gun-control-laws/

From USA v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1714 (2010) (see attached appeals court opinion):

jpr9954
03-21-2011, 10:04 PM
Attorneys for the USPS have made a big deal about Dorosan all the way throughout the case.

Do know what his fine was for carrying of USPS property?

$25.

The way they put so much emphasis on that case you'd think he got a year in Federal prison. Jeez!

navyinrwanda
03-22-2011, 1:11 AM
Doroson was a criminal appeal handled by the Federal Public Defender. It was as unpublished opinion and had no value as precedent outside of the Fifth Circuit – until the Public Defender petitioned the Supreme Court for cert.

Ordinary citizens doing business with the the Post Office aren't precisely the same as Postal Service employees. But the burdens imposed on the Post Office in accommodating Second Amendment rights might make the courts reluctant to see any difference.

navyinrwanda
03-22-2011, 2:06 AM
So, do you suppose Bonidys will reply something like " employees behind the counter and in the work area was the subject of Dorosan, public area and public parking are de novo, you need to do the analysis"?

Maybe.

Doroson' firearm was in his car, which was parked in a secured employee parking lot with signs warning that all persons and vehicles were subject to search. The judge did speculate somewhat about “public areas without official purpose:”


Noting the fact that there were no signs prominently displayed outside of the Gretna Post Office building publishing the regulation’s prohibition against carrying firearms (§ 232.1(l)) or animals (§ 232.1(j)) on “postal property,” the defendant argued that the statute was vague, overly broad and unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. More particularly, defense counsel suggested that the regulation effectively outlaws conduct including matriculating the drop box lane in a vehicle with either a firearm or an animal safely stowed within its confines. The undersigned Magistrate Judge expresses no opinion whatsoever as to the constitutionality of regulation’s ban on carrying firearms or animals in public areas without official purpose – i.e., operating a vehicle through the “snorkel lane” of the Gretna Post Office while accompanied by a pet Shih Tzu, other non-seeing eye dog or, perhaps, armed with a loaded handgun stowed in the glove compartment. Neither of those issues are before the Court in this case, which involves the prohibited conduct of carrying and storing firearms without official purpose in the gated/restricted access employee parking, loading and unloading area of the subject “postal property.”

Maestro Pistolero
03-22-2011, 9:23 AM
I will be very interested to hear how a post office lobby is a more sensitive place than a hospital lobby or a bank lobby.

kcbrown
03-22-2011, 9:36 AM
I will be very interested to hear how a post office lobby is a more sensitive place than a hospital lobby or a bank lobby.

Oh, that's easy. It's because there are government workers there. And government workers clearly deserve much more special protection than normal people... :rolleyes:

zinfull
03-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Yes it rates right up there with the bathrooms at Yellowstone NP.

jerry

N6ATF
04-09-2011, 10:43 PM
Bonidy has filed a second amended complaint here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52675970/Bonidy-v-USPS-2nd-Amended-Compl

H/T http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/04/bonidy-v-usps-not-over-yet.html

Connor P Price
04-09-2011, 11:12 PM
Bonidy has filed a second amended complaint here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52675970/Bonidy-v-USPS-2nd-Amended-Compl

Good lookin out on that one.

Window_Seat
10-24-2011, 12:11 PM
Back to the top (last post, 04-09-2011) — Movement (thus, maybe warranting further discussion):

Minute Order Entered by Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch:

The motion to dismiss [16] (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.16.0.pdf) is set for hearing on November 18, 2011, at 2:00
p.m. in Courtroom A, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823
Stout Street, Denver, Colorado.
Bonidy v. USPS Archive Docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html)

Minute Order Entered by Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.20.0.pdf)

Erik.

Crom
10-24-2011, 1:55 PM
Thanks Erik. This case sure is moving slow. :oji:

Paul S
10-24-2011, 2:21 PM
If Palmer goes our way, shouldn't we have the right to carry on Federal property, including the Post Office?

Since the post office has been a stand alone operation now for several years (no federal funding) is it still a Federal Agency...is it's property still federal property?

Not issuing a challenge to the post...just asking. :p

ChuangTzu
10-24-2011, 3:09 PM
Since the post office has been a stand alone operation now for several years (no federal funding) is it still a Federal Agency...is it's property still federal property?

Not issuing a challenge to the post...just asking. :p

Seems to me that if they can charge you with a crime for bringing a firearm onto their property--which is something no non-government agency can do--then they're a federal agency.

Wolverine
10-24-2011, 3:49 PM
Thanks Erik. This case sure is moving slow. :oji:

They sent it USPS.

wildhawker
10-24-2011, 4:13 PM
:rofl2:

Connor P Price
10-24-2011, 4:44 PM
Seems to me that if they can charge you with a crime for bringing a firearm onto their property--which is something no non-government agency can do--then they're a federal agency.

That seems to be putting the cart before the horse in a sense. You are correct in saying that government agencies can prohibit firearms on their property, but you can't analyze whether an entity is a federal agency by whether it does so. I'd turn that argument on its head and say if they're not a federal agency, then they can't lawfully make that prohibition. Determination of whether they are a federal agency must come first.

I'm not saying that I necessarily think they aren't a federal agency though, just that the order of operations for your test doesn't quite work.

They sent it USPS.

Strong contender for Calguns post of the week and its only a Monday.

odysseus
10-24-2011, 4:48 PM
This has some twisted fun in it: "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on Postal property..."

safewaysecurity
10-24-2011, 4:50 PM
How did I not know about this case? Weird.

Window_Seat
11-19-2011, 3:37 AM
ORDERED: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is denied.

It's ordered that the "defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint".

Courtroom Minutes (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.21.0.pdf) (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)

Order setting scheduling conference (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.22.0.pdf)

Erik.

edlegault
11-19-2011, 8:51 AM
Those who have home mail delivery, either in town or in a rural area: you buy and install your mailbox, but it "belongs" to the USPS. Putting non-mail in "your" mailbox is a USPS "crime". That could be inferred that just retrieving mail from your own box on your own property is a "sensitive" place for the USPS, therefore no firearms on your person or in your car when picking up your mail at the end of your own driveway!

Maestro Pistolero
11-19-2011, 10:15 AM
I see the amended complaint has added post OFFICE carry in addition to parking lot possession as an additional claim. I like that there is at least the possibility of carry within the Post Office.

Re: Sensitive places. If that IS the test, then shouldn't it at least have to pass a rational basis hurdle? In other words can the arguments be framed to force them to prove that an otherwise trusted, licensed, screened and trained individual is suddenly a threat to public safety once the threshold of the Post Office is crossed?

CHS
11-19-2011, 11:57 AM
I see the amended complaint has added post OFFICE carry in addition to parking lot possession as an additional claim. I like that there is at least the possibility of carry within the Post Office.

Re: Sensitive places. If that IS the test, then shouldn't it at least have to pass a rational basis hurdle? In other words can the arguments be framed to force them to prove that an otherwise trusted, licensed, screened and trained individual is suddenly a threat to public safety once the threshold of the Post Office is crossed?

Since it's legal for FFL's to utilize the postal system to ship handguns, I don't see how the defendants here have ANY legal leg to stand on.

Clearly, the postal system isn't THAT sensitive if we're allowing any postal worker to handle deadly and dangerous assault machine gun pistols without any kind of background checks.

Window_Seat
11-19-2011, 12:31 PM
What I'd like to know... WHY is it that a TWIC (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/twic/index.shtm) allows me to transport hazardous materials (like Class 1 Explosives) into a major port area, but no gun inside a USPS parking area even with a carry license (and a TWIC). If I'm so dangerous with that evil gun, then why do I qualify for a TWIC?

Erik.

Purple K
11-19-2011, 1:00 PM
C'mon Erik... Logic and common sense will not be tolerated!

Window_Seat
12-19-2011, 6:56 PM
On 12/09/2011, the defendants filed an answer brief to the Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Complaint. The reply is basically full of "the Amended Complaint contains Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions with respect to venue, to which no response is required...." and "Defendants deny that by “creating and enforcing the policy complained of in this action...

12/19/2011: Transcript released (from 11/19 when the Judge denied the defendants' motion to dismiss).

Erik.

HowardW56
12-19-2011, 7:19 PM
On 12/09/2011, the defendants filed an answer brief to the Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Complaint. The reply is basically full of "the Amended Complaint contains Plaintiffs’ legal conclusions with respect to venue, to which no response is required...." and "Defendants deny that by “creating and enforcing the policy complained of in this action...

12/19/2011: Transcript released (from 11/19 when the Judge denied the defendants' motion to dismiss).

Erik.

After reading that transcript it is obvious that the judge wants to hear that case....

This should be one to watch...

wazdat
12-19-2011, 8:25 PM
That was some good reading...

I especially enjoyed this statement from the judge, "But what is clear to me at this time is that this regulation, as applied to these people, cannot just be accepted because the government--the Postal Service says so." :yes:

Fjold
12-19-2011, 8:44 PM
After reading that transcript it is obvious that the judge really wants to hear that case....

This should be one to watch...

Fixed it.

Maestro Pistolero
12-19-2011, 8:46 PM
There seems to be no doubt whatsoever in this judge's mind the the right extends outside the home. I'm liking the taste of this.

Librarian
12-19-2011, 9:13 PM
It's pretty clear that Judge Matsch knows whose courtroom they were in.

formerTexan
12-20-2011, 12:53 AM
Since it's legal for FFL's to utilize the postal system to ship handguns, I don't see how the defendants here have ANY legal leg to stand on.

Clearly, the postal system isn't THAT sensitive if we're allowing any postal worker to handle deadly and dangerous assault machine gun pistols without any kind of background checks.

Not that far from the truth, machine guns (and other high value items) are often shipped USPS registered mail, since it provides a chain of custody throughout transit.

Window_Seat
12-20-2011, 9:26 AM
DQ... Since this is an "as-applied challenge" (as opposed to a "facial attack"), does this mean that if the Bonidy's prevail, it only applies to the Bonnidy's, or does it apply to that particular Post Office? Or does this case make it so that only parts of 39 CFR § 232.1(l) are struck, and Congress needs to go back to their DIY comic book?

Erik.

Untamed1972
12-20-2011, 9:35 AM
7 THE COURT: Well, isn’t that the very question, whether
8 that is reasonable, whether there’s no way in which, by a
9 permitting process or in any other fashion, like trigger
10 locks--you know, there are a lot of ways in which a firearm,
11 on this--at least the public parking lot, can be considered
12 inaccessible while it’s on the public parking area. Right?
13 MS. FARBY: Right.

Seems the defendants counsel just admitted, on the record, to the judge that there was a "less restrictive means than the current restriction to achieve their goal".

Someone hand them a rope so they can finish hanging themselves.

Peaceful John
12-20-2011, 9:58 AM
This could prove worth watching. It touches on (1) sensitive places, (2) bear, and (3) scrutiny.

Untamed1972
12-20-2011, 10:08 AM
I think the simple question is this: "How does someone having a gun in their car in the parking lot vs. the same car being parked a few feet away on the public street prevent violent crime on Postal Property?"

Simple answer: "It does not."

Simple conclusion: The regulation is unreasonable because it burdens the 2nd ammendment right while not increasing public safety in any fashion. You cannot claim "public safety" as your justification, if you can't demonstrate how your regulation actually provides for public safety.

Bolillo
12-20-2011, 10:18 AM
Someone hand them a rope so they can finish hanging themselves.

Indeed. :facepalm:

18 THE COURT: What constitutes a substantial infringement,
19 more than one day? Does it have to be more than ten days?
20 What are you talking about?

21 MS. FARBY [for the defense]: I don’t know, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: Exactly.

Untamed1972
12-20-2011, 11:01 AM
Wouldnt Ezell kinda foreclose the USPS claim that their restriction is legal because you can always park somewhere else? Kinda like chicago trying to claim their range ban was legal because you could go to a range outside the city.

And I think it's great in the case that there is actually a city ordinance stating there are times when you can't park on the street.

Paladin
09-25-2012, 8:26 PM
I had a note that dispositive motions were set for this Friday, the 28th, but I don't see anything on the CGF wiki or links re it. Any news on this case?

Window_Seat
09-25-2012, 10:16 PM
I had a note that dispositive motions were set for this Friday, the 28th, but I don't see anything on the CGF wiki or links re it. Any news on this case?

This ↑, plus what is in the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html), which will be capped just as soon as something comes in.

Erik.

gun toting monkeyboy
09-26-2012, 1:52 PM
I know this is an odd question, but aren't you supposed to be able to have your deer tag countersigned and validated at the post office?

CCR Title 14 708.6. Tag Validation, Countersigning and Transporting Requirements.
(a) Any person legally killing a deer in this state shall have the deer license tag validated and countersigned by a person authorized by the commission as described below before transporting such deer, except for the purpose of taking the deer to the nearest person authorized to countersign the license tag, on the route being followed from the point where the deer was taken (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4341).


6. Postmasters & Post Office Station or Branch Manager for deer brought to their post office.

I think the regs here are pretty clear. If you take a deer, you need to go to the nearest place with somebody to countersign it. It says nothing about stopping someplace to drop your gun off. In fact, I would think that doing so would be illegal. So if the nearest place is a post office, and you have to bring your deer there to get the countersignature and you are not allowed to stop at home to drop off your firearm, doesn't that mean that they can't say "no guns on USPS property"?

-Mb

Maestro Pistolero
09-26-2012, 2:46 PM
I know this is an odd question, but aren't you supposed to be able to have your deer tag countersigned and validated at the post office?

CCR Title 14 708.6. Tag Validation, Countersigning and Transporting Requirements.
(a) Any person legally killing a deer in this state shall have the deer license tag validated and countersigned by a person authorized by the commission as described below before transporting such deer, except for the purpose of taking the deer to the nearest person authorized to countersign the license tag, on the route being followed from the point where the deer was taken (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4341).


6. Postmasters & Post Office Station or Branch Manager for deer brought to their post office.

I think the regs here are pretty clear. If you take a deer, you need to go to the nearest place with somebody to countersign it. It says nothing about stopping someplace to drop your gun off. In fact, I would think that doing so would be illegal. So if the nearest place is a post office, and you have to bring your deer there to get the countersignature and you are not allowed to stop at home to drop off your firearm, doesn't that mean that they can't say "no guns on USPS property"?

-Mb

Good catch.

Tripper
09-26-2012, 2:56 PM
My local USPS has a sign on the door that say something like
No unlawful use of a firearm on this premises
I'll take a pic next time

bwiese
09-26-2012, 3:04 PM
Why does that make me think of certain LCAV counsel?.... :eek:

That, or her body hair?

Maestro Pistolero
09-26-2012, 4:58 PM
"No unlawful use of a firearm on this premises"It's a sign to announce the impermissibility of illegality.

wjc
09-26-2012, 5:09 PM
It's a sign to announce the impermissibility of illegality.

Like declaring a "Gun Free Zone"?

:43:

Rossi357
09-26-2012, 5:29 PM
I know this is an odd question, but aren't you supposed to be able to have your deer tag countersigned and validated at the post office?

CCR Title 14 708.6. Tag Validation, Countersigning and Transporting Requirements.
(a) Any person legally killing a deer in this state shall have the deer license tag validated and countersigned by a person authorized by the commission as described below before transporting such deer, except for the purpose of taking the deer to the nearest person authorized to countersign the license tag, on the route being followed from the point where the deer was taken (refer to Fish and Game Code, Section 4341).


6. Postmasters & Post Office Station or Branch Manager for deer brought to their post office.

I think the regs here are pretty clear. If you take a deer, you need to go to the nearest place with somebody to countersign it. It says nothing about stopping someplace to drop your gun off. In fact, I would think that doing so would be illegal. So if the nearest place is a post office, and you have to bring your deer there to get the countersignature and you are not allowed to stop at home to drop off your firearm, doesn't that mean that they can't say "no guns on USPS property"?

-Mb

Not sure about now, but a few yrs ago, you had 30 days to get the tag signed off. Law enforcement, game warden, postmaster and prolly a few others. It's been a while since I got to old to pack a deer out of a canyon.

Kharn
09-26-2012, 6:10 PM
CCR are California-specific regulations, they do not trump federal regulations.

gun toting monkeyboy
09-26-2012, 6:30 PM
But for the Post Office workers to be on that list, the Post Office had to have agreed at some time that they were capable of doing it. And agreed to the regs. I really doubt that the state just tacked them on the list without their consent. And with the sign saying "no unlawful use" instead of "no guns", doesn't that mean that having guns there lawfully (to mail them legally, or in your car for lawful reasons) IS allowed?

-Mb

Maestro Pistolero
09-26-2012, 10:55 PM
How can a place in which one may mail a firearm (at least a long arm if one is not an FFL) be a sensitive place?

A comparison is the check-in counter at an airport. In many states, carry is allowed in the unsecured areas of airports. I have been ask in some cases to open my locked container to verify it's unloaded. I may have ammo or loaded magazines in that container.

The Post office is similar in that you may enter with a (packaged) firearm and entrust it to them to transport it. I fail to see how a government building can simultaneously allow possession of a firearm for one purpose (shipping), but for the purpose that's most closely associated with the right (carry for self defense) be considered sensitive in the Heller sense of the term. It fails even a rational basis test.

Boulderlaw
08-08-2013, 10:24 AM
Update on Bonidy case: http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/news-updates/case-documents/2013/07/09/bonidy-v.-usps-order

taperxz
08-08-2013, 10:45 AM
Thats a good read! And, a good win!

Thanks for posting.

curtisfong
08-08-2013, 10:47 AM
It could be argued that the actual post office might be sensitive enough but probably not the parking lot.


And it seems, "SO ORDERED".

IVC
08-08-2013, 11:28 AM
Update on Bonidy case: http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/news-updates/case-documents/2013/07/09/bonidy-v.-usps-order

Please post a sentence or two of summary since not everybody is going to read the full legal document.

I probably should have started with "thanks for the update," so, thanks for the update and good news.

Wolverine
08-08-2013, 11:32 AM
The reasons that the judge gave to uphold the restrictions inside the post office building are weak and transparently contrived to support his preconceived ruling that the building is a sensitive place. None of the reasons he gives applies more to the public lobby of the PO than to the parking lot, yet he forges ahead.

I suspect in this case the judge wished to lift the ban from the parking lot, but knew he couldn't lift the ban from the building (based on his reading of Heller).

It will fall on the 10th Circuit (and ultimately SCOTUS) to explore what sensitive places might really mean in this case.

curtisfong
08-08-2013, 12:32 PM
[the judge] didn't want to lift the ban from the building (based on his bias)

Fixed it for you.

pointedstick
08-08-2013, 2:55 PM
When it comes to the building itself, a blanket firearms restriction applied to a law-abiding individual like Mr. Bonidy is sufficiently tailored, because the building is sensitive, and the presence of an individual openly carrying a firearm may excite passions, or excited passions may lead to the use of the firearm. Someone could also attempt to take the firearm from its lawful carrier and use it for criminal purposes.

Boy, what airtight legal reasoning. :rolleyes:

dustoff31
08-08-2013, 3:04 PM
I suspect in this case the judge wished to lift the ban from the parking lot, but knew he couldn't lift the ban from the building (based on his reading of Heller).

Could be. This ruling also essentially makes USPS property the same as a National Park as to carrying. That is, you can carry IAW state law on the property, but not in the buildings.

Wolverine
08-08-2013, 3:14 PM
Boy, what airtight legal reasoning. :rolleyes:

Yep, and the lobby of the post office building (where Bonidy seeks to carry) is so sensitive that it is left unguarded, unattended and open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to anyone that wishes to go there. I'm sure the Judge lets anyone at anytime wander through places he considers sensitive.

The sad part is the Judge just accepted Heller's assertion that firearms could be prohibited from sensitive places like government buildings without applying any thought to it. He compounded this error by then requiring the Plaintiffs to show that the lobby is not a sensitive place. Since Heller's assertion was not backed up by any reasoning as to why a government building might be considered sensitive, demanding that the Plaintiffs prove that they are not is an impossible task.

The good thing is that he struck down the ban on the parking lot. We know that the USPS will appeal to the 10th Circuit and hopefully we'll get some good judges to provide some reasoning behind the sensitive place designation.

Maestro Pistolero
08-08-2013, 5:14 PM
I've said this before but I really would like to see the standard of what constitutes a sensitive place require controlled ingress and egress, and that the government assumes the burden of protecting those it disarms. Traditionally, this is the case in any other traditional sensitive place such as an airport, courthouse, a police station, a jail, a high-level political event, etc.

If a place isn't sensitive enough to control the entry and exit, and have armed guards, then I submit it is not sensitive at all.

wheels
08-08-2013, 5:49 PM
I've said this before but I really would like to see the standard of what constitutes a sensitive place require controlled ingress and egress, and that the government assumes the burden of protecting those it disarms. Traditionally, this is the case in any other traditional sensitive place such as an airport, courthouse, a police station, a jail, a high-level political event, etc.

If a place isn't sensitive enough to control the entry and exit, and have armed guards, then I submit it is not sensitive at all.

^ Absolutely - and I hope this migrates towards the VA as well - they have the same language around the parking areas for VA facilities.

mag360
08-08-2013, 6:09 PM
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, and it isFURTHER ORDERED, that the other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. §232.1(

l

) made by Plaintiffs are denied. (carrying a gun inside)

Wolverine
08-08-2013, 6:59 PM
If a place isn't sensitive enough to control the entry and exit, and have armed guards, then I submit it is not sensitive at all.

Perfectly reasonable to me. Yet the Judge thinks exactly the opposite...

The Avon Post Office building is used for a governmental purpose by significant numbers of people, with no means of securing their safety; therefore, it is a sensitive place, and the USPS Regulation is presumed to be valid as applied to the building.

It seems that in this Judge's mind, CCW would be fine if the premises were secured and armed guards were present to protect patrons from the CCWers.

Maestro Pistolero
08-08-2013, 7:35 PM
Perfectly reasonable to me. Yet the Judge thinks exactly the opposite...



It seems that in this Judge's mind, CCW would be fine if the premises were secured and armed guards were present to protect patrons from the CCWers.
I noticed that, thanks for pointing that out. The judge's reasoning in nearly a non-sequiter.

Davidwhitewolf
08-09-2013, 10:13 PM
jpr, good to see you here. I do enjoy reading your blog.

-Brandon

I do as well! Highly recommended!

press1280
08-10-2013, 3:07 AM
Perfectly reasonable to me. Yet the Judge thinks exactly the opposite...



It seems that in this Judge's mind, CCW would be fine if the premises were secured and armed guards were present to protect patrons from the CCWers.

Judge was focused on OC due to the 10th Circuit precedent in Peterson. Weak reasoning inside the PO since you could make the same claim anywhere there's other people. But it would seem to open the door for a challenge to the Denver OC ban. I hope someone is getting a lawsuit together as we speak........

hardlyworking
08-10-2013, 7:24 AM
The reasons that the judge gave to uphold the restrictions inside the post office building are weak and transparently contrived to support his preconceived ruling that the building is a sensitive place. None of the reasons he gives applies more to the public lobby of the PO than to the parking lot, yet he forges ahead.

Completely agree, that was some seriously weak sauce

Darklyte27
10-27-2013, 7:08 PM
Boy, what airtight legal reasoning. :rolleyes:

def biased.

ORRRRRRR the lawful carrier could stop a mass shooting when a postal worker decides to go postal!

wireless
04-02-2014, 5:49 PM
Can we get someone legal savey to keep us update to date with links?


I did recently research the judge in the 10th court of appeals is hearing the case. I did some research on her and she is very conservative + appointed by Bush. I guess that's good for us, but long term goals it would help us if we could keep appealing the case up the latter.

press1280
04-02-2014, 6:32 PM
Can we get someone legal savey to keep us update to date with links?


I did recently research the judge in the 10th court of appeals is hearing the case. I did some research on her and she is very conservative + appointed by Bush. I guess that's good for us, but long term goals it would help us if we could keep appealing the case up the latter.

What judge? Has the 3 judge panel been announced?

I think the briefings are almost done, but I don't have them. Someone with Pacer access can get them.

Wolverine
04-02-2014, 6:41 PM
Can we get someone legal savey to keep us update to date with links?


I did recently research the judge in the 10th court of appeals is hearing the case. I did some research on her and she is very conservative + appointed by Bush. I guess that's good for us, but long term goals it would help us if we could keep appealing the case up the latter.

I just looked around and apparently the USPS and Bonidy have filed cross appeals in the 10th Circuit. USPS is appealing the district court ruling that found their parking lot gun ban unconstitutional and Bonidy is appealing the district court ruling that the USPS' in the building ban is constitutional.

I found this which shows some of the activity that has been going on for the past 6-7 months.

Appeal Docket (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1642)

And here is Bonidy's most recent (3/24/14) brief

Bonidy Brief No. 4 (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fourth-Brief.pdf)

wireless
04-02-2014, 7:16 PM
Thank you. This case is pretty interest AND it's in the 10th so I have high hopes.

bohoki
04-02-2014, 7:43 PM
i guess they have to cancel their po box

Mulay El Raisuli
04-04-2014, 6:49 AM
Thank you. This case is pretty interest AND it's in the 10th so I have high hopes.


Me, too.


The Raisuli

e90bmw
04-04-2014, 10:54 AM
Like declaring a "Gun Free Zone"?

:43:

Free guns?????

But seriously, a criminal will carry when ever and where ever they chose.
They don't care about the law. So laws banning carry in a particular place only affect law abiding citizens.
Criminals, do what they do.... They are criminals.
It like going to the zoo and being surprised that monkeys throw crap and llamas spit. That's what they do.......

Hanse Davion
04-04-2014, 11:41 AM
So now that Bonidy's reply brief has been filed, whats the next step?

SkyHawk
04-04-2014, 3:03 PM
So now that Bonidy's reply brief has been filed, whats the next step?

Oral arguments, should be soon

press1280
09-22-2014, 2:27 PM
Panel for Bonidy on October 1st is at CA10's website: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/calendar/events/Sept_2014_final.pdf

Timothy Tymkovich (Bush 43)
Gregory Phillips (Obama)
David Ebel (Reagan)

wireless
09-22-2014, 2:49 PM
Only thing I could find on Tymkovich.



But, a lower federal court judge has now suggested that the Court perhaps should not have gone that far. Tenth Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, in an opinion issued Tuesday, expressed “concern that the dictum inhibits lower courts from exploring the contours of Heller and its application to firearms restrictions….I…wonder whether Second Amendment law would have been better served if the regulations Heller addressed in dicta had been left to later cases.”

The judge’s comments came in a concurring opinion as a three-judge panel decided a case involving an individual convicted of being a felon who illegally had a gun — a specific crime that the Heller dictum would seem to have left unaffected by the Second Amendment declaration of a personal right of self-defense with a gun.

The ruling came in McCane v. U.S. (Circuit docket 08-6235), found here. (Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing blog for the alert to Judge Tymkovich’s opinion and to the case.)

Lawyers involved in the case said Wednesday that they plan a further challenge to the Circuit’s ruling, either by asking for en banc review by the Circuit, or taking the case on to the Supreme Court — a choice they have not yet made. Aside from the Second Amendment point, the lawyers are troubled by another part of the McCane opinion, apparently expanding the so-called “good-faith” exception to the “exclusionary rule” to excuse a constitutional violation by police. (See the discussion near the end of this post.)

Judge Tymkovich noted that six other Circuit Courts have rejected constitutional challenges to the federal law making it a crime for a felon to possess a gun. “Almost all these decisions cursorily cite the Heller dictum, and almost all are unpublished,” he wrote.

That, he indicated, appears to be the consequence of the Supreme Court’s having chosen to drop into its opinion a comment on gun restrictions not at issue in Heller. “Rather than seriously wrestling with how to apply this new Second Amendment rule,” Tymkovich commented, “courts will continue to simply reference the applicable Heller dictum and move on.” Perhaps, he added, that is what the Supreme Court intended with its “clear direction,” even in dicta.

Still, the judge lamented this development, saying that the volunteered qualification in Heller “short-circuits at least some of the analysis and refinement that would otherwise take place in the lower courts.”

The judge also suggested that, having based the Second Amendment right on a right of self-defense, the Court then went on to undercut that right for any felon, whether or not that person’s prior felony was a violent or non-violent crime. “Non-violent felons…certainly have the same right to self-defense in their homes as non-felons,” Tymkovich wrote. The federal law, he noted, permanently disables any felon, even one convicted previously of a financial fraud or perjury, from ever exercising the very Second Amendment right that Heller created. “One wonders,” he mused, “whether the Heller dictum has swallowed the Heller rule.”

Tymkovich’s critique, however, goes further, and directly questions the basic premise of the dictum: that is, the notion that barring felons from having guns was a ban of “longstanding.” The history of “felon dispossession laws,” the judge said, is not as clear-cut as the Court’s opinion suggested. While some sources would support that perception, he said, “more recent authorities have not found evidence of longstanding dispossession laws. On the contrary, a number have specifically argued such laws did not exist and have questioned the sources relied upon by the earlier authorities….These authorities cast doubt on a categorical approach to felon dispossession laws.’

In the McCane case itself, an Oklahoma man, Markice Lavert McCane, challenged his conviction for violating the federal felon dispossession law by arguing, among other points, that the law was unconstitutional under the Heller decision. Apparently feeling bound by the Heller dictum, the Circuit Court panel summarily rejected that argument, prompting Judge Tymkovich to explore it separately.

press1280
09-23-2014, 1:01 AM
A good find and very insightful. If he's willing to go that far for a felon case, then Bonidy ought to be in good shape for a win or at least get open carry outside the home protected under the 2A.

wireless
09-23-2014, 1:42 AM
I can't find anything on Ebel but he's from Kansas and appointed by Reagan so that's a good sign.

Phillips doesn't look too promising. I found this:

What standard of scrutiny do you believe is appropriate in a Second Amendment
challenge against a Federal or State gun law?


Response: While District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), did not state which
standard of heightened scrutiny applies, it did rule out the deferential rational-basis
standard. Id. at 628 n.27. The Tenth Circuit has applied intermediate scrutiny to a Second
Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792, 802
(10th Cir. 2010). If confirmed, I would follow relevant Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit
precedent on this matter as on all other matters.

Source

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031913QFRs-Phillips.pdf

Mulay El Raisuli
09-23-2014, 7:47 AM
A good find and very insightful. If he's willing to go that far for a felon case, then Bonidy ought to be in good shape for a win or at least get open carry outside the home protected under the 2A.


Especially given the District Court's flat-out statement that Open Carry is the 2A Right.


The Raisuli

press1280
09-23-2014, 4:44 PM
Especially given the District Court's flat-out statement that Open Carry is the 2A Right.


The Raisuli

Which was suggested by the Peterson opinion.

wireless
09-23-2014, 8:40 PM
So Oct 1st we will see some action, how long after that until everything is argued and the judges have to decide?

Master_P
09-23-2014, 10:01 PM
So Oct 1st we will see some action, how long after that until everything is argued and the judges have to decide?

AFAIK there's no time limit.

Peruta was argued in December of 2012. The opinion was released in February of 2014, so over fourteen months. That's a bit unusual, but it's a brilliant opinion and IMO was worth the wait.

If we're fortunate, the judges on this case will do a thorough job going through the historical context of prohibitions of weapons in "sensitive places"... something compelling and convincing that other circuits can use in future litigation.

wireless
09-23-2014, 10:15 PM
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. From Oct. 1st date, when will all the trial proceedings end so that it is in the judges hands to decide?

Librarian
09-23-2014, 10:38 PM
So Oct 1st we will see some action, how long after that until everything is argued and the judges have to decide?

Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. From Oct. 1st date, when will all the trial proceedings end so that it is in the judges hands to decide?
Oct 1 is oral arguments before the 10th Circuit 3-judge panel. Unless the Court should do something unusual, the case is in the hands of the panel after an hour or two on the day of oral arguments.

Once things get to the Circuit Courts of Appeal, pretty much all the 'trial' portions of a suit are complete; at that level, facts are already set, it's application of the law that is at issue.

After oral arguments, there is no - repeat, NO - time limit on the judges' deliberations or issuing an opinion. They can and will take the time satisfactory to themselves.

wireless
09-23-2014, 11:29 PM
Ahh okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I've heard the 10th moves fast compared to the 9th.

press1280
09-24-2014, 12:57 AM
Ahh okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I've heard the 10th moves fast compared to the 9th.

Maybe, although Peterson took about a year from orals to opinion. The issue in this case IMO is more refined, so a year may be long. But who really knows.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-24-2014, 10:13 PM
Which was suggested by the Peterson opinion.


Yeah. Though I would suggest that it was a bit more than a "suggestion" by Peterson.

Is that the "refinement" you mentioned in post #129?


The Raisuli

press1280
09-25-2014, 1:10 AM
Yeah. Though I would suggest that it was a bit more than a "suggestion" by Peterson.

Is that the "refinement" you mentioned in post #129?


The Raisuli

Sort of, I was referring to the fact that in Peterson there was great confusion on the panel as exactly what was being challenged (Denver ordinance/CO CCW). In this case there shouldn't be any confusion.

Mulay El Raisuli
09-27-2014, 9:34 AM
Sort of, I was referring to the fact that in Peterson there was great confusion on the panel as exactly what was being challenged (Denver ordinance/CO CCW). In this case there shouldn't be any confusion.


Ah. Thank you. I agree.


The Raisuli

Paladin
10-02-2014, 6:50 AM
Oct 1 is oral arguments before the 10th Circuit 3-judge panel....
Any word on how orals went?

wireless
10-02-2014, 10:50 AM
I'd love to read/listen to orals.

Window_Seat
10-02-2014, 11:07 AM
At the time of the Peterson orals, audio wasn't available for the public to hear, but one could petition the Court and pay (and wait).

Erik.

Window_Seat
10-02-2014, 11:23 AM
10th Cir. R. 34

34.1 Oral argument.

(E) Recording and Transcription.

(1) Recording. Oral arguments are recorded electronically for the use of the court. Parties or others seeking access to the recordings may, however, file a motion to obtain a copy. The motion must state the reason or reasons access is sought. Upon issuance of an order from the hearing panel granting the request, the clerk will be directed to forward the mp3 recording via email.

(2) Transcription. Counsel or parties may move for permission to arrange, at their own expense, for a qualified court reporter to be present and to report and transcribe oral argument. A copy of the transcript must be filed with the circuit clerk.

2014 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Tenth Circuit Local Rules (https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/clerk/FRAP%20RULES%20FINAL%202014-11-15-2013.pdf) (Only 293 pages, but just do a search for "recording").

Erik.

Southwest Chuck
10-02-2014, 12:49 PM
At the time of the Peterson orals, audio wasn't available for the public to hear, but one could petition the Court and pay (and wait).

Erik.

How would one petition the court to change it rules and publish and allow free access to all the oral agruments they hear like the 4th Circut does (which are available only 2 days after they are held)?

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/oanotice20140922.pdf

What would it take for a rule change and what possible objection could they come up with for with-holding the recordings to the public?

press1280
10-02-2014, 2:25 PM
How would one petition the court to change it rules and publish and allow free access to all the oral agruments they hear like the 4th Circut does (which are available only 2 days after they are held)?

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/oanotice20140922.pdf

What would it take for a rule change and what possible objection could they come up with for with-holding the recordings to the public?

I guess the court can change its rules and put the recordings up like CA9 and others do. They don't technically withhold the recordings but they charge you. Hopefully someone gets the recording and posts here (I don't think its illegal but IANAL).

Gray Peterson
10-02-2014, 3:59 PM
An email was sent to counsel for Bonidy to ask for that.

Wolverine
10-02-2014, 4:47 PM
David Kopel has some things to say about yesterday's oral arguments. You can read it here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/02/bonidy-v-united-states-the-second-amendment-at-the-post-office/).

Southwest Chuck
10-02-2014, 6:36 PM
Oct 1 is oral arguments before the 10th Circuit 3-judge panel.

David Kopel has some things to say about yesterday's oral arguments. You can read it here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/02/bonidy-v-united-states-the-second-amendment-at-the-post-office/).

I think Mr. Kopel made an error in the above article. In the first sentence, He states "Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Bonidy v. United States ......., "

It's not in front of the Supreme Court...... yet ..... ;)

wireless
10-02-2014, 8:41 PM
David Kopel has some things to say about yesterday's oral arguments. You can read it here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/02/bonidy-v-united-states-the-second-amendment-at-the-post-office/).

Good read. Stuff like this helps me get through the court's slow pace.

ldsnet
10-02-2014, 9:36 PM
Wow! A ruling based on Kopel's narrative could put the entire sensitive places statutes on their ear!!! I hope the judges agree!

Wolverine
10-02-2014, 10:18 PM
I think Mr. Kopel made an error in the above article. In the first sentence, He states "Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Bonidy v. United States ......., "

It's not in front of the Supreme Court...... yet ..... ;)

Yeah, an obvious brain fart that he has since corrected.

I am also not so sure that the 10th circuit will formulate an opinion in which a concealed carry permit plays as much a role as Kopel envisions (based on the 10th's opinion in Peterson).

inalienable
10-02-2014, 11:05 PM
David Kopel has some things to say about yesterday's oral arguments. You can read it here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/02/bonidy-v-united-states-the-second-amendment-at-the-post-office/).

Besides, a well-written Tenth Circuit decision on Bonidy and the Avon Post Office might well provide the USPS with all it needs to write a uniform national standard should it choose. For example:

“When the Post Office does not provide an armed security guard in a building or parking lot, postal patrons who have a concealed carry permit may:

–Leave their guns in a locked car while they use the post office, but may not leave the car in the lot after their finish their postal business.
–Carry the gun into the lobby area during times when there is no window service.
–Not carry during times when there is window service.” (This was a tentative concession made by Bonidy’s attorney during oral argument).

Ugh...great. So in addition to the literally HUNDREDS of pages of laws we have to know to make sure we don't become accidental felons because our firearm has a shoulder thing that goes up we're going to have to know a half-dozen rules for every different type of "sensitive" building we might happen upon in our daily activities? What a ****ing joke.

Colorado has it right: metal detectors and armed guards or you can't call it sensitive. Period.

- inalienable

Window_Seat
10-02-2014, 11:20 PM
How would one petition the court to change it rules and publish and allow free access to all the oral agruments they hear like the 4th Circut does (which are available only 2 days after they are held)?

What would it take for a rule change and what possible objection could they come up with for with-holding the recordings to the public?

I guess the court can change its rules and put the recordings up like CA9 and others do. They don't technically withhold the recordings but they charge you. Hopefully someone gets the recording and posts here (I don't think its illegal but IANAL).

I wonder if the 2nd, 10th and 11th Circuits just need someone to submit good model rules and a good digital audio master clerk. Give it :twoweeks: and they will...:facepalm:
Here is my non-lawyerly proposal:

"10th Cir. R. 34

34.1 Oral argument.

(E) Recording and Transcription.

(1) Recording. Oral arguments are recorded electronically digitally for the use of the Court, and the recording does not represent an official record of the proceedings. The recording may be accessed the day following argument via the Court’s website at www.ca10.uscourts.gov under "Argument Audio and Recordings". Parties or others seeking access to the recordings, which reflect that of the official record of the proceedings, may, however, file a motion to obtain a an official copy. The motion must state the reason or reasons access is sought. Upon issuance of an order from the hearing panel granting the request, the clerk will be directed to forward the mp3 recording via email."

Ok, here is the .pdf article that proposes that we submit the above in quotes:

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/clerk/PublicCommentMemo8-21-2014.pdf

You are welcome to take and paste (with the exception of my identifying information) from my letter attached to submit to the email address provided in the link above to submit comments regarding the proposal I attach.

Erik.

Maestro Pistolero
10-03-2014, 12:43 AM
Colorado has it right: metal detectors and armed guards or you can't call it sensitive. Period.

- inalienableF'ing right. If it isn't sensitive enough for metal detectors, controlled ingress and egress and armed security, then it isn't bloody sensitive, IS it?. As far as i am concerned the government assumes the burden of defending the innocent life whenever it disarms a citizen contra the second amendment.

Paladin
10-18-2014, 8:15 PM
Any word on how orals went?

Bump.

Didn't anyone besides the lawyers directly involved show up to listen to orals???

penguinofsleep
10-18-2014, 8:48 PM
While this is a very comparatively small fish to fry, I have always found it funny that they go well beyond the standard federal regulation of basically no firearms inside.

A small fish is better than no fish though...

wireless
10-18-2014, 9:28 PM
This could be a really big case. If losing party appeals to SCOTUS and they grant cert, we will have a ruling on the right to carry.

IVC
10-19-2014, 11:37 AM
then it isn't bloody sensitive, IS it?

Heh, love the Brits. Sound so polite, even in anger...

press1280
11-02-2014, 9:35 AM
Bump.

Didn't anyone besides the lawyers directly involved show up to listen to orals???

I didn't, but here's the oral arguments: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?attachment_id=2338

Maestro Pistolero
11-02-2014, 1:01 PM
Oral arguments a big disappointment. My comments here:http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3479194&postcount=113

Plaintiff's attorney fell on his behind, sounded incompetent, simple. He failed to comprehend the nature of the argument the judge was raising, actually reverting twice to a sophomoric: "But he was completely disarmed!" Very disappointing.

If this case involves a balancing test as suggested by the court, plaintiffs attorney left a LOT off our side of the scale. He did not explain very well why the government has affirmatively demonstrated, by its complete absence of security (or indeed any) USPS personnel, that this 24 hour-access post office can be IN NO WAY sensitive under any Heller or McDonald analysis.

One judge's question about crypts and bloods and stealing postal money orders met no rebuttal from plaintiff's attorney.

The public lobby of the Avon post office is literally abandoned by the government at closing time each night with the front doors left unlocked. To this non-lawyer, that doesn't sound sensitive at all.

There was more unaddressed stupidity when a judge ask whether patrons had a right to 'know" that other patrons weren't carrying concealed. Let the stupidity of those worrisome question sink in for a second.

No example was made of the thousands of small and medium sized airports in the country in which it is legal to carry according to local and federal law in UNSECURED areas. In some US localities lawful citizens may be lawfully armed in city and county buildings. Not surprisingly, it is rare as hen's teeth to see a mass shooting in one of those "sensitive " places.

I just think this was poorly argued, and if it goes up, a change in counsel is in order. This is fodder for Paul Clement, not Clem Kadiddlehopper.

sholling
11-02-2014, 1:08 PM
IANAL but the orals don't sound like they went well. Plaintiff's attorney seemed to be woefully unprepared and in way over his head, even though the defendant's attorney seemed to have little in the way of an argument beyond arguing for the application of rational basis. What I found most troubling was the judges' seeming assumption that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard of review, and the plaintiff's attorney not having a forceful argument for strict scrutiny prepared and ready to use in response.

Edit: Why didn't the NRA or SAF step in with some genuine legal muscle instead of leaving an important case like this to a lightweight?

wolfwood
11-02-2014, 1:42 PM
IANAL but the orals don't sound like they went well. Plaintiff's attorney seemed to be woefully unprepared and in way over his head, even though the defendant's attorney seemed to have little in the way of an argument beyond arguing for the application of rational basis. What I found most troubling was the judges' seeming assumption that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard of review, and the plaintiff's attorney not having a forceful argument for strict scrutiny prepared and ready to use in response.

Edit: Why didn't the NRA or SAF step in with some genuine legal muscle instead of leaving an important case like this to a lightweight?

These guys have won more constitutional law cases before the Supreme Court and various Appellate Courts than the NRA and SAF combined.

press1280
11-02-2014, 1:51 PM
IANAL but the orals don't sound like they went well. Plaintiff's attorney seemed to be woefully unprepared and in way over his head, even though the defendant's attorney seemed to have little in the way of an argument beyond arguing for the application of rational basis. What I found most troubling was the judges' seeming assumption that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard of review, and the plaintiff's attorney not having a forceful argument for strict scrutiny prepared and ready to use in response.

Edit: Why didn't the NRA or SAF step in with some genuine legal muscle instead of leaving an important case like this to a lightweight?

I suppose since Bondy at least got a partial win at the District court, maybe they thought it would be OK. In any event it's not their case.

Agreed, although I do think they want to reach the inside/outside the home question, which can only help our other cases trying to get to SCOTUS. As far as intermediate scrutiny, that may be 10th Circuit precedent. Bonidy's argument should have been that the government hasn't shown why people legally carrying would be dangerous. Instead he kept going on about inconveniences to Bonidy.
The lack of time devoted to the parking lot tells me that part of the lower court opinion will stand. The lobby is another story. The issues there seem to be if the government can simply do a blanket ban BECAUSE it's a government building, or if that's not the case, do you have to allow carry based on security,exc?

press1280
11-02-2014, 2:00 PM
These guys have won more constitutional law cases before the Supreme Court and various Appellate Courts than the NRA and SAF combined.

They actually do have a good track record. This attorney did fall flat though, even though I thought one of the judges (asking about intermediate scrutiny) was trying to help him by pointing out it's the government's burden to satisfy, and he flat out blew it. That may have cost the lobby.

Peaceful John
11-02-2014, 2:56 PM
If I understand it correctly, it was a cross appeal with the the plaintiff (having won the parking lot) asking for the reconsideration of the lobby and the defendant (having won the lobby) requesting the parking lot. It doesn't look like this case, pretty much regardless of how it turn out, is going to satisfy both parties. Don't you think it's destined for appeal by one party or the other?

sholling
11-02-2014, 3:44 PM
These guys have won more constitutional law cases before the Supreme Court and various Appellate Courts than the NRA and SAF combined.
I'll take your word for it, but I wouldn't let that guy handle a traffic ticket for me much less an important appellate case. There is just no excuse for being that unprepared.

Maestro Pistolero
11-02-2014, 4:59 PM
Bonidy's argument should have been that the government hasn't shown why people legally carrying would be dangerous.Bingo. Not a word about that. The government made no showing whatsoever that Bonidy, or ANY ONE similarly situated, would negatively impact security at the post office. It's maddening to watch one missed argument after another pass by.

The court goes on and on about the generalized risks of firearms, and there's plenty of hand wringing about how to KNOW if an armed person is dangerous or not, but make NO distinction between the criminal misuse and the legitimate self-defense interest. Hint: if someone with a holstered firearm is retrieving his mail, NOT brandishing, and just going about his/her business, they are highly unlikely to be a threat. To threaten requires some actual action, gesture, or at least threatening language on the behave of the individual. Mere generalized fear of firearms CANNOT be sufficient to destroy a fundamental right.

RobertMW
11-02-2014, 7:05 PM
Ok, I know that this seems kind of (like reeeeeealy) far fetched. But is it possible that the plaintiff side could give a semi - weak argument at the appellate level to gurantee that they have the right to appeal to the Supreme court, rather than hoping that the defendant does at this level, rather than have a Chicago situation that fails to hit the SCOTUS level?

I know that this is practically conspiracy theory level thinking, but at the same time it does seem a viable solution to grantee SCOTUS appeal.

press1280
11-03-2014, 1:01 AM
Ok, I know that this seems kind of (like reeeeeealy) far fetched. But is it possible that the plaintiff side could give a semi - weak argument at the appellate level to gurantee that they have the right to appeal to the Supreme court, rather than hoping that the defendant does at this level, rather than have a Chicago situation that fails to hit the SCOTUS level?

I know that this is practically conspiracy theory level thinking, but at the same time it does seem a viable solution to grantee SCOTUS appeal.

That would be a huge gamble and a disservice to Bonidy(unless he signs off on it). I'd have to believe this case would be a longshot to get cert, no matter how it turns out.

Master_P
11-03-2014, 3:08 PM
That oral argument was painful to listen to... "Trust me, I know what the Supreme Court meant in Heller."..... LOL

Window_Seat
11-03-2014, 6:24 PM
The Judge questioning the Counsel for Bonidy hardly let him get a word in during the beginning of his argument. If it's any comfort, it's not so much how Judges rule on orals (at the appellate level), it's mostly on what is supposedly in the record, is it not? Orals are just to gain more of an awareness of what both sides are thinking about the case, as well as to clarify certain issues in the record. No? Not all points can be argued within a 15 minute window, especially anything that ISN'T in the record, which doesn't have room for everything under the sun; which is why I thought it was kinda silly for the Judge to ask about a "footnote" in Heller implicating all government buildings. The only thing Bonidy's Counsel could have said (I would) was "maybe they should institute a ban on carrying when retrieving mail from a cluster mailbox".

For some reason, Judges seem to be relying on non-existent "footnotes" rather than the holding. This gives me a queasy feeling that to this day (even 6 years after Heller), some Judges still need other Judges to hold their hand while crossing the street. Perhaps, courts, when making these types of analytical points, are likely reading too much into Justice Breyer's dissent in McDonald when he stated that "judges do not know the answers to the kinds of empirically based questions that will often determine the need for particular forms of gun regulation. Nor do they have readily available “tools” for finding and evaluating the technical material submitted by others." (See McDonald, Page 15 (194) Breyer, J., dissenting).

Just what kind of a "tool" is it that Justice Breyer has suggested that is non-existent? Again, it's the HOLDING, not the non-existent footnote, the dictum, nor the dissent's unfounded grumblings that the courts are supposed to look to when determining the answer to the question, no?

Regarding his question on presumptively sensitive places, Judges know that there are no long winded analysis footnotes to determine what government buildings should get a free pass, otherwise, opinions would be 1000 pages in length. Further, if every government building had a free pass, then we couldn't be legally armed on the way to the cluster mailbox and utilize it, nor could we be armed while watching the State of the Union speech.

USPS Counsel wraps up with no rebuttal, which leads me to believe that he prematurely predicted a reversal in his favor.

Judges are sometimes bad at playing devil's advocate. It's my opinion that they happened to be in this case (on orals). Otherwise, I'd say (as one who spends most of the day listening to oral arguments) that both counsel did alright.

Erik.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-03-2014, 9:00 PM
Edit: Why didn't the NRA or SAF step in with some genuine legal muscle instead of leaving an important case like this to a lightweight?


Because they aren't really interested in Unlicensed Carry.


Ok, I know that this seems kind of (like reeeeeealy) far fetched. But is it possible that the plaintiff side could give a semi - weak argument at the appellate level to gurantee that they have the right to appeal to the Supreme court, rather than hoping that the defendant does at this level, rather than have a Chicago situation that fails to hit the SCOTUS level?

I know that this is practically conspiracy theory level thinking, but at the same time it does seem a viable solution to grantee SCOTUS appeal.

That would be a huge gamble and a disservice to Bonidy(unless he signs off on it). I'd have to believe this case would be a longshot to get cert, no matter how it turns out.


Yes, this would be a gamble. But one worth taking. Six YEARS after Heller, "outside the home" is STILL not settled. The tactic of the "Right People" has not worked, and the Heller 5 ain't getting any younger. Somebody who has read Heller has to get in front of SCOTUS real damn soon or we're going to lose the most important half of "keep and bear."


The Raisuli

M. D. Van Norman
11-03-2014, 10:06 PM
Because they aren’t really interested in Unlicensed Carry.

And neither is the government … or so the theory goes.

wireless
11-03-2014, 10:40 PM
Yes, this would be a gamble. But one worth taking. Six YEARS after Heller, "outside the home" is STILL not settled. The tactic of the "Right People" has not worked, and the Heller 5 ain't getting any younger. Somebody who has read Heller has to get in front of SCOTUS real damn soon or we're going to lose the most important half of "keep and bear."

I think it'd be a risk worth taking also. Hopefully that's what they are doing given how long it'll take for palmer or peruta (if ever) to reach SCOTUS.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-04-2014, 3:23 PM
And neither is the government … or so the theory goes.


Well, the govt loathes unlicensed carry.


The Raisuli


P.S. Thank you, wireless.

M. D. Van Norman
11-05-2014, 12:40 PM
Hence the theory that government courts will never recognize unlicensed carry as the legal right …

Mulay El Raisuli
11-09-2014, 9:07 AM
Hence the theory that government courts will never recognize unlicensed carry as the legal right …


Still, the Constitution is the Constitution. The govt wasn't all that fond of black people either. Yet, their civil Rights were recognized by govt courts.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
11-09-2014, 11:12 AM
Still, the Constitution is the Constitution. The govt wasn't all that fond of black people either. Yet, their civil Rights were recognized by govt courts.


The Raisuli

The difference is that while southern state and local governments weren't fond of black people, the federal government was, and so were federally-appointed judges. And so, too, was the media.

Here, it is the courts themselves, in addition to the state and local governments we're fighting, as well as the media itself, that are not fond of the 2nd Amendment.

This is a very different situation from that of the civil rights movement. We have far more enemies around us than did blacks back in the day. We are much more on our own than they were.

Artema
11-09-2014, 11:16 AM
My local post office has a nearly empty parking lot next door. I park there and walk a short distance. Still sucks.

Maestro Pistolero
11-09-2014, 12:37 PM
We have far more enemies around us than did blacks back in the day. Yet, we have far fewer enemies , and far more allies than we did 10 or 20 years ago. Perspective, my friend.

kcbrown
11-09-2014, 1:36 PM
Yet, we have far fewer enemies , and far more allies than we did 10 or 20 years ago. Perspective, my friend.

That is perhaps true. Certainly, most states (and, logically, most people in those states) are supportive of the right to at least some degree.

In a way, what we're dealing with is something of a reversal of the situation the civil rights folks had to deal with. They were fighting against a fairly large number of state and local governments, but had a lot of support at the federal level (and, importantly, from all branches thereof) and from the media. We, on the other hand, are fighting relatively few state and local governments, but have little support at the federal level (again, from all branches thereof. And, really, what we have at much of the federal level is opposition, not merely lack of support) and the media is actually an enemy.

It was because the civil rights folks had federal support and support of the media that they won. That we lack such support does not logically mean we will not win (A -> B does not mean that !A -> !B). It does mean that our fight is much more difficult.

People have repeatedly used the civil rights movement as a model for what we can expect. I've pointed out repeatedly that guns are different, and that the fear and loathing of the right to arms on the part of those in government is much greater than fear and loathing of minority rights ever was. Events to date have proven me correct. We never saw the kind of judicial rebellion within the federal judiciary during the civil rights movement that we see today in our fight for the right to arms.

What I didn't predict from the outset was that the Supreme Court itself would drop the right on the ground, but that's precisely what it's done here. That is unprecedented, and bodes very ill for us.

Even so, it ain't over until it's over, and we do the best we can no matter what.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-10-2014, 8:40 PM
Yet, we have far fewer enemies , and far more allies than we did 10 or 20 years ago. Perspective, my friend.


And, I think the majority of people are either on our side, coming over to our side, at least thinking about joining our side.


The Raisuli

wireless
06-26-2015, 11:23 AM
The right to carry in the parking lot exists, but not in the post office

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-1374.pdf

kcbrown
06-26-2015, 12:24 PM
The right to carry in the parking lot exists, but not in the post office



https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-1374.pdf


No. They ruled against carry in the parking lot as well, both on the basis of the parking lot being considered part of the post office proper, and also on the basis of "intermediate scrutiny".

In other words, this is now a total loss.


It is now entirely possible that the 10th Circuit would decide against us as regards general carry through "intermediate scrutiny", on the basis that carry itself yields an elevated risk to public safety (the same "reasoning" the majority applied to the parking lot). The majority fails to explain why or how the regulation is "substantially related" to the "important government interest" in "creating a safe environment". It just asserts it.

Indeed, the opinion even goes so far as to all but outright state that intermediate scrutiny is proper for ALL "outside the home" 2A questions if only because they clam that the need for self defense outside the home is "less acute" than inside the home.


Remember how I asked so long ago if the Supreme Court has a duty to reverse the lower courts if they are all incorrect? People here seemed to be arguing that the Court's duty is primarily to resolve circuit splits, but that implies that there is a lack of duty in the absence of a split. No, the real duty of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution NO MATTER WHAT THE LOWER COURTS SAY OR DO.

It is becoming clear that the lower courts are essentially united against the 2nd Amendment, a situation I believe I previously warned about being possible, particularly in the context of circuit splits.


(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

Librarian
06-26-2015, 12:50 PM
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conclude that the regulation is
constitutional as to all USPS property at issue in this case, including the Avon Post Office
parking lot, because the Second Amendment right to bear arms has not been extended to
“government buildings.” Government buildings, in this context, includes the government
owned parking lot connected to the U.S. Post Office. Alternatively, even if we were to
conclude that the parking lot did not qualify as a “government building,” we would
uphold this regulation as constitutional as applied to the parking lot under independent
intermediate scrutiny.
Sigh.

press1280
06-26-2015, 2:01 PM
Sigh.

I think the various orgs need to consider going to state courts before elected judges. Our Federal courts are just completely out to lunch, at least elected officials have to face the voters.
I mean, come on, every government building (like a restroom/outhouse) is now "sensitive"?

wildhawker
06-26-2015, 3:13 PM
The chair is against the wall.

Another Federal Circuit Court Unravels Second Amendment Gun Rights (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/legal/breaking-another-federal-circuit-court-unravels-second-amendment-gun-rights/)

wildhawker
06-26-2015, 3:13 PM
I think the various orgs need to consider going to state courts before elected judges. Our Federal courts are just completely out to lunch, at least elected officials have to face the voters.
I mean, come on, every government building (like a restroom/outhouse) is now "sensitive"?

State courts are generally even worse.

-BC

randian
06-26-2015, 4:35 PM
Indeed, the opinion even goes so far as to all but outright state that intermediate scrutiny is proper for ALL "outside the home" 2A questions if only because they clam that the need for self defense outside the home is "less acute" than inside the home.

That's truly bizarre and totally contrary to the facts. Outside the home is far more dangerous than inside.

press1280
06-26-2015, 4:48 PM
State courts are generally even worse.

-BC

Certain ones for sure (NY,CA). But lawsuits in more gun friendly states may succeed.
We're just looking for a split right now, and the Federal courts have taken it upon themselves to keep the issue away from SCOTUS.

kcbrown
06-26-2015, 5:28 PM
Certain ones for sure (NY,CA). But lawsuits in more gun friendly states may succeed.

We're just looking for a split right now, and the Federal courts have taken it upon themselves to keep the issue away from SCOTUS.


No they haven't. With rare exception, they've taken it upon themselves to bury the right in the ground, period.

SCOTUS has had plenty of opportunities to weigh in on the issue, to put down the judicial rebellion that has been taking place for the last several years. SCOTUS has consistently CHOSEN not to.

That is not an accident. It is not due to insufficient bandwidth, lack of a split, lack of "ripeness", or any other excuse that is so often trotted out in defense of the "integrity" of the Court. It is the way it is because, simply put, the Court HAS NO INTEGRITY. It does what it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. It answers to nobody. It is arbitrary and capricious in PRECISELY the way I have previously described so many times before, just as the lower courts are, because they exercise power without consequence to themselves. The only reason people here have failed to recognize that is because they have had a Pollyannaish view of the courts, as if they were living in a 1950s movie or something.

Welcome to the real world, gentlemen. This is the place I have been living in all this time. Now you are FINALLY beginning to see it.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

wireless
06-26-2015, 5:55 PM
No. They ruled against carry in the parking lot as well, both on the basis of the parking lot being considered part of the post office proper, and also on the basis of "intermediate scrutiny".

In other words, this is now a total loss.


It is now entirely possible that the 10th Circuit would decide against us as regards general carry through "intermediate scrutiny", on the basis that carry itself yields an elevated risk to public safety (the same "reasoning" the majority applied to the parking lot). The majority fails to explain why or how the regulation is "substantially related" to the "important government interest" in "creating a safe environment". It just asserts it.

Indeed, the opinion even goes so far as to all but outright state that intermediate scrutiny is proper for ALL "outside the home" 2A questions if only because they clam that the need for self defense outside the home is "less acute" than inside the home.


Remember how I asked so long ago if the Supreme Court has a duty to reverse the lower courts if they are all incorrect? People here seemed to be arguing that the Court's duty is primarily to resolve circuit splits, but that implies that there is a lack of duty in the absence of a split. No, the real duty of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution NO MATTER WHAT THE LOWER COURTS SAY OR DO.

It is becoming clear that the lower courts are essentially united against the 2nd Amendment, a situation I believe I previously warned about being possible, particularly in the context of circuit splits.


(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)


****. I read the district courts opinion and not the circuit.

After hearing orals, I hope SCOTUS doesn't take this case.

Window_Seat
06-26-2015, 6:25 PM
Certain ones for sure (NY,CA). But lawsuits in more gun friendly states may succeed.
We're just looking for a split right now, and the Federal courts have taken it upon themselves to keep the issue away from SCOTUS.

Meanwhile, how likely is it for there to be that FRAP/Tenth Cir. Rule 35.1 en banc petition?

Erik.

M. D. Van Norman
06-26-2015, 11:33 PM
That is not an accident. It is not due to insufficient bandwidth, lack of a split, lack of “ripeness,” or any other excuse that is so often trotted out in defense of the “integrity” of the Court. It is the way it is because, simply put, the Court HAS NO INTEGRITY. It does what it wants, when it wants, and how it wants. It answers to nobody. It is arbitrary and capricious … because they exercise power without consequence to themselves.…

The rule of law rather than of men was a noble idea, but it seems done for another millennium or two. :(

Awesomesauce
06-27-2015, 12:50 AM
Sigh.

Soooooo..... who exactly "owns" the streets and the sidewalks in the city?
Would that therefore make the public thoroughfares part of a giant "government building complex"?

Just asking.

press1280
06-27-2015, 3:57 AM
Meanwhile, how likely is it for there to be that FRAP/Tenth Cir. Rule 35.1 en banc petition?

Erik.

I'm sure Bonidy will try and will likely fail.

Paladin
06-27-2015, 6:35 AM
:(

The chair is against the wall.
Don't even joke....

Mulay El Raisuli
06-27-2015, 3:48 PM
That's truly bizarre and totally contrary to the facts. Outside the home is far more dangerous than inside.


Yup. Which is why I'm beginning to believe kcbrown.


The Raisuli

kcbrown
06-27-2015, 6:04 PM
Yup. Which is why I'm beginning to believe kcbrown.


That had to have been a most difficult admission. And it shows your character to be the highest quality as a result. It takes great courage and strength of character to admit that one may be wrong in one's beliefs.

My hat is off to you, sir, and I still hope to God you're right about SCOTUS and Norman. I expect and fear you're not, however. :(

We'd better have a damned good Plan B, because Plan A is obviously, even if not inescapably, dead in the water.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-29-2015, 7:02 AM
That had to have been a most difficult admission. And it shows your character to be the highest quality as a result. It takes great courage and strength of character to admit that one may be wrong in one's beliefs.

My hat is off to you, sir, and I still hope to God you're right about SCOTUS and Norman. I expect and fear you're not, however. :(

We'd better have a damned good Plan B, because Plan A is obviously, even if not inescapably, dead in the water.


I always base my beliefs on reality (or, at least try to). And the reality here is beginning to look like a Plan B is called for.

Now, it could be that the logic used in the gay marriage case will apply to the 2A, and CCW licenses will HAVE to be recognized nationwide. There's LOTSA chatter about this on FaceBook. But I don't think that's the case.


The Raisuli

lowimpactuser
06-29-2015, 12:21 PM
That is perhaps true. Certainly, most states (and, logically, most people in those states) are supportive of the right to at least some degree.

In a way, what we're dealing with is something of a reversal of the situation the civil rights folks had to deal with. They were fighting against a fairly large number of state and local governments, but had a lot of support at the federal level (and, importantly, from all branches thereof) and from the media. We, on the other hand, are fighting relatively few state and local governments, but have little support at the federal level (again, from all branches thereof. And, really, what we have at much of the federal level is opposition, not merely lack of support) and the media is actually an enemy.

It was because the civil rights folks had federal support and support of the media that they won. That we lack such support does not logically mean we will not win (A -> B does not mean that !A -> !B). It does mean that our fight is much more difficult.

People have repeatedly used the civil rights movement as a model for what we can expect. I've pointed out repeatedly that guns are different, and that the fear and loathing of the right to arms on the part of those in government is much greater than fear and loathing of minority rights ever was. Events to date have proven me correct. We never saw the kind of judicial rebellion within the federal judiciary during the civil rights movement that we see today in our fight for the right to arms.


I would just like to point out this is way different than giving black people rights. Black people were about 10.5% of the population, according to wiki, through the 1960s. Further, they were mostly concentrated a few places, and are readily identifiable. In essence, the public danger presented by African Americans is miniscule compared to the idea of arming nearly everyone, everywhere, and you can't tell who is an enemy by the color of their skin. If African Americans presented problems after being given rights, the worst case scenario is that the elites could abandon the cities, or even the few in those cities be abandoned, and the cities surrounded/abandoned/attacked.

Gun rights for everyone represents a distributed problem that is geographically everywhere, indistinguishable from the general populace (because they are part of it), and presents enough people that they could actually threaten the power structure if it came to that. Further, empowering African Americans led to a faithful voting bloc, empowering gun owners leads neither to a faithful voting bloc nor more ability to usurp power, only lessened ability to do so.

Indeed, guns are very, very different.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, fighting civil rights over guns as our best hope is bleak indeed. If you look at the countless manifest violations that have occurred, and central tenets of the civil rights act, including desegregation, have stalled and been reversed in many places from white flight. If that is the best hope the gun rights movement can come up with, then that sucks. Civil rights sounds great to lawyers, as it has very powerful tools in the toolbox, but from a perspective on the ground, in real lived experiences, it is nowhere near enough.

wireless
01-07-2016, 9:21 PM
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2015-12-8-Bonidy-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

Cert petition filed

1. Whether the “presumptively lawful regulatory
measures” mentioned in District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), burden the right to keep
and bear arms, as some circuits have ruled, or whether
those measures are categorical exceptions to the
Second Amendment right, as the circuit below and
others have ruled.

2. Whether a nationwide United States Postal
Service regulation that prohibits a law-abiding,
responsible citizen from safely storing his handgun
inside a locked vehicle parked in a rural post office
parking lot while he picks up his mail violates the
Second Amendment.


Lol

kcbrown
01-07-2016, 11:29 PM
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2015-12-8-Bonidy-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

Cert petition filed


The second question posed is full of awesome the way it's worded. The Supreme Court will, of course, refuse to answer it.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-08-2016, 11:06 AM
The second question posed is full of awesome the way it's worded. The Supreme Court will, of course, refuse to answer it.


It is ALL good.

But I fear that your conclusion is correct.


The Raisuli

press1280
01-09-2016, 4:58 AM
I think there were a number of cases filed which were meant to follow up after a carry case successfully got to SCOTUS, this being one of them. Of course since bear hasn't gotten there this case is probably DOA.

Paladin
03-21-2016, 7:25 AM
Cert. was DENIED today.

Order list here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

command_liner
03-21-2016, 10:26 AM
Cert. was DENIED today.

Order list here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032116zor_h3ci.pdf

Hmmm.

So now the operative questions is ... Can a homeless woman carry her stun gun into a Post Office when picking up her mail?