Mason-Dixon Baseball
Ultimate Member
I wouldn't even say a PO is a govt building...since 18 USC 930 doesn't apply to it.
The Fallston PO building is privately owned by a family we know, and leased to the USPS....
I wouldn't even say a PO is a govt building...since 18 USC 930 doesn't apply to it.
The Fallston PO building is privately owned by a family we know, and leased to the USPS....
Complaint said:7. Defendant United States Postal Service (“USPS”) is “an independent establishment of the executive branch of the government of the United States . . . .” 39 U.S.C. § 201. The USPS is responsible for providing “postal facilities of such character and in such locations, that postal patrons throughout the Nation will . . . have ready access to essential postal services.” 39 U.S.C. § 403(b)(3). USPS is authorized “to adopt . . . rules and regulations . . . as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” 39 U.S.C. § 403(2). USPS, by creating and enforcing the policy complained of in this action, currently is depriving Plaintiffs of the right to
keep and bear arms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Response said:7. Defendants deny that by “creating and enforcing the policy complained of in this action, [the United States Postal Service] currently is depriving Plaintiffs of the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” Defendants otherwise admit the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint.
Complaint said:11. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess functional firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns—for purposes of self-defense.
12. The Second Amendment guarantees, inter alia, “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036 (2010).
Response said:11. Paragraph 11 (& 12) of the Amended Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is necessary, the allegations of paragraph 11 are denied.
2012-01-26 25 0 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 6/25/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 9/28/2012. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 1/26/2012. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
2012-01-26 26 0 Courtroom Minutes for Scheduling Conference held on 1/26/2012 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. (FTR: K. Terasaki) (rpmcd) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
The schedule which came from the scheduling conference on 1/26/12 is...Discovery! Woo-hoo and drag this one through the Summer...
Is it me, or are the courts dragging out the pure "outside the home" cases?
Am I missing something? How can a judge be that much of an idiot? A lessee by definition only has a possessory interest, since that's what a lease does: temporarily transfers the right of use and possession from the owner to another, conditioned upon timely payment of rent. This is many centuries old common law.[tongue-in-cheek]
Didn't an Idaho judge just rule that a lessee has no possessory interests?
Is it me, or are the courts dragging out the pure "outside the home" cases?
09/04/2012 29 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Party Debbie Bonidy by Plaintiff Debbie Bonidy. (Manley, James) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
09/05/2012 30 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF DEBBIE BONIDY'S CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE and each party will bear its own costs and attorney's fees with respect to Ms. Bonidys claims re: 29 Stipulation, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 9/5/2012. (Debbie Bonidy terminated), (rpmcd) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
09/28/2012 31 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A-1 (part 1 of 4), # 3 Exhibit A-1 (part 2 of 4), # 4 Exhibit A-1 (part 3 of 4), # 5 Exhibit A-1 (part 4 of 4), # 6 Exhibit A-2, # 7 Exhibit A-3 (part 1 of 2), # 8 Exhibit A-3 (part 2 of 2), # 9 Exhibit A-4, # 10 Exhibit A-5, # 11 Exhibit A-6, # 12 Exhibit A-7, # 13 Exhibit A-8, # 14 Exhibit A-9, # 15 Exhibit A-10, # 16 Exhibit A-11, # 17 Exhibit A-12, # 18 Exhibit A-13, # 19 Exhibit A-14, # 20 Exhibit A-15, # 21 Exhibit A-16 (part 1 of 2), # 22 Exhibit A-16 (part 2 of 2))(Farby, Lesley) Modified on 10/16/2012 to remove Level 1 Restriction pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.2(D) (rpmcd}. (Entered: 09/28/2012)
09/28/2012 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants (Public and Text Only Entry re 31 ). (rpmcd) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
10/29/2012 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment AND RESPONSE 32 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Manley, James) Modified on 10/30/2012 (rpmcd). (Entered: 10/29/2012)
11/28/2012 34 BRIEF in Opposition to 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A-17, # 3 Exhibit Padilla-1, # 4 Exhibit A-18, # 5 Exhibit A-19, # 6 Exhibit A-20, # 7 Exhibit A-21)(Farby, Lesley) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
In sum, openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. The Avon Post Office Building is a sensitive place and the ban imposed by the USPS Regulation is a presumptively valid restriction of that liberty. The Plaintiff has failed to present evidence to rebut that presumption. The parking lot adjacent to the building is not a sensitive place and the Defendants have failed to show that an absolute ban on firearms is substantially related to their important public safety objective. The public interest in safety and Mr. Bonidy’s liberty can be accommodated by modifying the Regulation to permit Mr. Bonidy to “have ready access to essential postal services” provided by the Avon Post Office while also exercising his right to self-defense. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. §232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms outside the home for a lawful purpose, subject to such restrictions as may be reasonably related to public safety.
The Court recognized that there is a collective interest in public safety that trumps individual liberty in given circumstances. Just as the liberty protected by the First and Fourth Amendments may be limited by restrictions necessary to preserve a well-ordered society, the freedom to keep and bear arms may be restrained by majoritarian governmental action.
When and how those restraints may be applied has been and will be the subject of extensive litigation.
The Defendants first assert that USPS’ ownership of the lot is, itself, a sufficient basis for the exclusion of firearms. But as the country’s First Amendment jurisprudence demonstrates, constitutional freedoms do not end at the government property line.