Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • krucam

    Ultimate Member
    This one is one of 30 on my 2A case page.
    30) Bonidy v. USPS (CO, Challenging US Post Office as Sensitive, Gun-Free Zone Area) National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) Added 10/6/10
    Filed 10/4/2010. Colorado District Court. Case: 1:10-cv-02408-RPM
    Internet Archive: http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html Uploaded Docket 10/10/10
    Justia Summary: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2010cv02408/122068/
    On Deck:

    The funny thing is that this isn't SAF or NRA or Mountain States Legal Foundation supporting this case...it is the Nat'l Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). If you're not familiar with NAGR, just think of those email alerts on Rep Bobby Rush's House Resolution 45 and the words Blair Holt...:innocent0

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

    INMY01TA

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 29, 2008
    5,816
    They don't seem to have a problem with Postal Inspectors carrying on their property.
     

    jpr9954

    Member
    Oct 22, 2010
    10
    Western North Carolina
    This one is one of 30 on my 2A case page.
    30) Bonidy v. USPS (CO, Challenging US Post Office as Sensitive, Gun-Free Zone Area) National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) Added 10/6/10
    Filed 10/4/2010. Colorado District Court. Case: 1:10-cv-02408-RPM
    Internet Archive: http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html Uploaded Docket 10/10/10
    Justia Summary: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2010cv02408/122068/
    On Deck:

    The funny thing is that this isn't SAF or NRA or Mountain States Legal Foundation supporting this case...it is the Nat'l Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). If you're not familiar with NAGR, just think of those email alerts on Rep Bobby Rush's House Resolution 45 and the words Blair Holt...:innocent0

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

    One quick correction - while the organizational plaintiff is NAGR - the case is being brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation. The attorney of record is Jim Manley of MSLF.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Last week amongst all the other events....

    In Bonidy v US Postal Service (Lawful Carry in Federal Post Offices), the Defendants filed #6 a Motion to Dismiss on #5 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

    Docket is HERE.

    Item 6 Defendants Motion to Dismiss is attached.

    This one while tempting on the surface (Federal Property) will likely fail. From the MTD:
    Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” like the USPS regulation at issue here, are “presumptively lawful.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17 (2008).

    Relying on Heller, the Courts of Appeals, including the Tenth Circuit, have uniformly held that regulatory measures like the USPS regulation do not violate, or even implicate, the Second Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1686 (2010).

    In fact, the Tenth Circuit has held that Heller “specifically foreclosed” a Second Amendment challenge to a similar regulatory measure, United States v. Nolan, 342 Fed. Appx. 368, 372 (10th Cir. 2009), and the Fifth Circuit recently relied on Heller in upholding the precise USPS regulation at issue here. 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”).
     

    Attachments

    • 6 - Bonidy Def MTD of Pltf Amended Complaint.pdf
      125.8 KB · Views: 237

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Plaintiffs filed their objection to the Defendant Motion to Dismiss on 1/13/2011.

    http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.10.0.pdf

    It's not a bad write up. Heavy on the self-defense being core to the right angle. They then take up GA's Nunn case to develop the "carry" aspect...USPS firearms ban does not fit within the “presumptively lawful” regulatory
    measures identified in Heller...

    We'll see, but I'm not hopeful in this one.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I thought it was challenging the parking lot portion of the post office? How's the parking lot a sensitive place?
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    I thought it was challenging the parking lot portion of the post office? How's the parking lot a sensitive place?

    Full Docket is here: http://ia700100.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html

    From the complaint:
    20. On July 22, 2010, the Bonidys, through counsel, contacted the USPS to inquire as to whether they would be subject to prosecution pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) if they carried a firearm on USPS property or stored a firearm in their cars when they parked on USPS property when picking up their mail. Exh. 1.
    21. On August 3, 2010, Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mary Anne Gibbons responded, on behalf of Postmaster General John Potter, to the Bonidys’ July 22, 2010, letter. Ms. Gibbons stated, “the regulations governing Conduct on Postal Property prevent the Bonidys from carrying firearms, openly or concealed, onto any real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service. . . . There are limited exceptions to this policy that would not apply here.” Exh. 2.

    Prohibitions start from the parking lot.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Defendants USPS just filed their response to the January Plaintiff Opposition to MTD.
    02/11/2011 11 REPLY to Response to 6[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendants John Potter, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service. (Farby, Lesley) (Entered: 02/11/2011)

    The Judge yesterday responded with:
    02/15/2011 12 Minute ORDER Setting Hearing on 6[RECAP] MOTION to Dismiss for 3/21/2011 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom A by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 2/15/2011. (rpmcd) (Entered: 02/15/2011)

    The Defendant's filing 11 is attached. It will be on the Docket...some time...
     

    Attachments

    • 11 - Reply in Support of Def MTD.pdf
      94.9 KB · Views: 232

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    why post offices?? I get courthouses, but why post offices?

    Parking lots are off limits as they are considered federal property. So you cannot carry in a Post Office parking lot anywhere in the nation regardless of your permits. You cannot even leave your gun in the car as you go into the building to pick up your mail. A lot of people still use PO boxes and counter services.

    The Post Office's interpretation of the law is an open door to making everyday interactions with government a federal crime if you also happen to exercise a fundamental civil right.

    I think the case is ill timed and ill prepared. They run the risk of getting creamed and creating a huge precedent that could set us back for years. Some people need to learn patience and impulse control.

    And yes...I cribbed that last bit from Charlie Sheen.
     

    BondJamesBond

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Nov 2, 2009
    5,001
    Can we get a new little icon that shows the little yellow guy jousting at windmills or do we have to use the "kicking a dead horse" icon?


    :lol:
     

    jonnyl

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 23, 2009
    5,969
    Frederick
    Parking lots are off limits as they are considered federal property. So you cannot carry in a Post Office parking lot anywhere in the nation regardless of your permits. You cannot even leave your gun in the car as you go into the building to pick up your mail. A lot of people still use PO boxes and counter services.

    The Post Office's interpretation of the law is an open door to making everyday interactions with government a federal crime if you also happen to exercise a fundamental civil right.

    I think the case is ill timed and ill prepared. They run the risk of getting creamed and creating a huge precedent that could set us back for years. Some people need to learn patience and impulse control.

    And yes...I cribbed that last bit from Charlie Sheen.

    I guess I was thinking a step behind, and really questioning why all federal property is automatically "sensitive". I certainly understand some, but don't see why a Post Office would be more sensitive than a 7-11.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I guess I was thinking a step behind, and really questioning why all federal property is automatically "sensitive". I certainly understand some, but don't see why a Post Office would be more sensitive than a 7-11.

    I agree. The problem with this case (and others like it) is that there is no federally recognized right to carry a firearm in public. So the argument is something like this:

    Plaintiff: I have a right to carry a functional firearm on federal|whatever property.

    Defendant: Show me where the right is recognized...

    Plaintiff: It's right there in the Constitution. Can't you read?

    Defendant: We can read just fine, and know that no Supreme Court decision supports your position. All it says is "in the home". Can't you read?

    Plaintiff: But, but...Heller didn't mean...blah, blah, blah.

    Federal Court: Until the Supreme Court rules that public carry is a right, the federal government has the ability to make any damn law it wants to regulate a non-protected activity. And right now there is no fundamental protection for carrying guns anywhere but the home. You lose. And you are kinda dumb, but we only hint at that in obtuse verbiage.

    Defendant: Thanks Judge. Plaintiff's are stupid. If they had waited a few years we would have lost this case. But now we got a great precedent that is probably going to survive for a long, long time even if the right is recognized. Did I mention Plaintiff's were stupid? Yes? OK...let me say it again another way: Plaintiff's were impatient and stupid.

    Plaintiff: WTF! Heller! McDonald! Jefferson! Gura! Regime Change! Bloomberg!...WTF!



    This is why I hate our side some days. As Charlie Sheen tells Lindsay Lohan...it's all about impulse control. Best case: they lose but lose slowly. Then an appeal will occur after the right is recognized. Then someone adult steps in and finishes the case off.

    Strategic civil rights litigation is about building a ladder. Each win is a rung used to climb to the next level. Litigating the top of the ladder (ban lists, parking lots, school zones, etc.) right away is not about climbing: it is an attempt to leap, hoping you will get lucky because there is no support below you. If you fall, it's onto the hard ground below. You need to start from scratch.

    Yes, it sucks to have to slowly claw our way to the top when we just know what it right. But we are not alone in history. As Rihanna says: "Life's a game but it's not fair. I break the rules but I don't care. So I keep doin' my own thing; walkin' tall against the rain."

    Yeah...got the Pandora Radio running right now. Expect more wisdom from Jay-Z in the next post. It's one of those days. ;)
     

    Gray Peterson

    Active Member
    Aug 18, 2009
    422
    Lynnwood, WA
    Patrick,

    Not sure I can agree with you in this case. Remember that my case is also running in parallel to the Bonidy case in US District Court for the District of Colorado. So it's possible that one of our cases will jump to the 10th Circuit and save the other case (preferably mine, but mine is a slightly cleaner case where there is a compliant denial of RKBA).

    James Manley is actually a competent litigator. He is also the attorney for the Mishiga v. Monken case.

    Besides military installations (which there are different issues there which can be resolved by an "in the home" case filed if there is actual seperate base housing rather than barracks), the most expansive gun ban currently in effect (and therefor easy to take on) is the USPS postal property ban. Before it was national parks but Congress fixed that by legislation with the Coburn Amendment.

    United States v. Dorosan shows the problem with actually not filing a case. Someone will use 2A in their criminal defense, and sometimes the best vaccine to such decisions is to file a competent civil litigation and distinguish yourself from folks who are trying to defend criminal charges instead.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Perhaps. But they are still trying to claim a right that has not been recognized. That is a tough jump. In a perfect world they would have the ability to say "Look, the right is recognized and here it is denied. Rule accordingly."

    Your case is different in my mind. Colorado is denying a right to one citizen that another citizen has. Note I am using citizen in the National context, just as the Constitution did when it said the states must afford all citizens the same process as their own.

    Criminal cases are wild cards. We had our own here (Williams) that was argued so horribly by a defense attorney I literally had a hard time watching. He admitted on camera he was out of his league before the whole thing even began. Thankfully it was a state case.

    Maybe the right to bear in public will be assumed or recognized as part of this postal case. That would be great. But it seems like an awful big leap of faith right now, when we are 2-3 years from something stronger. It's hard to claim your rights are being denied when the right does not yet exist in the record. If the whole point of this exercise is to create another avenue of attack to actually get that right recognized, then I am reading this whole thing incorrectly and will gladly tell my qualms to go away.

    James Manley is actually a competent litigator. He is also the attorney for the Mishiga v. Monken case.

    And I should not have judged the attorney of record without doing due diligence first. This whole things seems so ill timed that I assumed it was another Hail Mary by yet another poor litigator. And frankly, judging these people is beyond my MDS pay grade anyway. I should restrict such judgment to my own lawyers.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,918
    Messages
    7,258,739
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom