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!
  • montoya32

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jun 16, 2010
    11,311
    Harford Co
    Sucks if you job, for some reason, requires you to purchase postal money orders regularly and you have a permit to carry for you job on the basis of carrying cash.
     
    Since my town of residence does not have postal home delivery, everyone here has a post office box. Sometimes I forget and check my box without disarming. Maybe I should turn myself in?

    What really pisses me off is I drive all the way down to the Martinsburg VA Hospital and have to leave my firearm at home. It seems silly that the government doesn't have any trust in trained veterans who in most cases have years of firearm experience. I feel totally naked driving the interstate highway system unarmed.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    So...Defendant's MTD was denied in November. Friday, they finally got in their Response to Plaintiff Amended Complaint (which was submitted in April, 2011).

    Yeah, the wheels of justice do move slowly...

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.24.0.pdf

    It is one of those "thrilling" responses where they take each paragraph of the Complaint and answer it by para #. Without the question, the answers are often meaningless.

    With that said, the Amended Complaint (April '11) this response is referencing is: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.15.0.pdf

    This is fairly short, so I'll go ahead and bring up a couple of Defendant's points of contention IRT the corresponding paragraph from the Amended Complaint. This isn't all of them...

    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.

    They do the same for the USPS Postmaster General, and the CO Postmaster at the Post Office in question, both are Defendants. It then gets a bit more interesting...

    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.
     

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    [tongue-in-cheek]
    But, but.. Isn't this PO leased property? Didn't an Idaho judge just rule that a lessee has no possessory interests?

    So tell me again how any part of the regulations can hold up to that standard?
    [/tongue-in-cheek]
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Transcript for the MTD Hearing is here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=127199&d=1324349759

    Granted, we already know the Defendant MTD was spanked down in November. So why would someone want to read the transcript?

    Why would someone watch Star Wars II 30 years after watching the first Star Wars which they now call IV or something? Crap...

    A Scheduling Conference is...scheduled...for 1/26/12, after which we should have a...Schedule....
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    The schedule which came from the scheduling conference on 1/26/12 is...Discovery! Woo-hoo and drag this one through the Summer...
    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)
     

    randian

    Active Member
    Jan 13, 2012
    715
    [tongue-in-cheek]
    Didn't an Idaho judge just rule that a lessee has no possessory interests?
    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.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    Is it me, or are the courts dragging out the pure "outside the home" cases?

    District Courts are bogged down nationwide. All civil cases are on the same schedule. Even "big" cases between litigants who want to get things done fast are on 2-3 year schedules. There are litigants who want to move fast - generally business parties who want their answer so they can move on.

    In our case, the other side certainly wants to slow things down. My point is that even if they wanted to go fast, we could not.

    Everybody blames the US Senate. They have been on hiatus from Federal Court confirmations for years and both parties are to blame. Justice Roberts has testified numerous times that the Senate needs to put aside their political issues and just confirm people so cases will start moving again. But of course, the folks like us are screaming that the Senate should block "bad" nominees - and that can mean anything depending on where you stand on the issue of the day.

    There is some talk that the current situation is getting close to - or even past - the point of constitutional crisis. We are constitutionally guaranteed a "speedy trial". While no time-lines were set in the document, it is easy to argue that practical considerations and business interests demand faster than 2 year trials.

    So what happens when the federal courts can no longer provide constitutionally-guaranteed speedy trials?

    We'll probably never know, because the trial on that issue will take ten years. :lol2:
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Yeah, a reawakening but late in announcement...so sue me.... :D

    We were looking at Discovery last Feb. Since then, a few other developments (including the dismissal of the original party) have occurred:

    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)

    The State filed a MSJ (haven't used that acronym in a while) on 9/28/12. Since RECAP/PACER seems to be FUBAR'd for this case, I've attached #31. Normally PACER/RECAP can upload automatically for District filings.

    On 10/29/12, the Plaintiffs (our side) filed a Cross-MSJ, which is also attached.

    On 11/28/12, the Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff Brief. Guess what, it's attached as well!

    I want to say each brief is about 50+ pages per, I haven't read yet as Dinner, Movie and my beautiful wife await. Hope someone can digest, or I'll work on it tomorrow.
     

    Attachments

    • Bonidy Def MSJ.pdf
      321.1 KB · Views: 156
    • Bonidy Pltf Crossf MSJ.pdf
      328.6 KB · Views: 142
    • Bonidy Def Opp to Pltf Cross MSJ.pdf
      270 KB · Views: 133
    Last edited:

    Al Norris

    Spud Head
    Dec 1, 2010
    746
    Rupert, Idaho
    Partial Win For Bonidy

    Back on June 18th, the Judge held a hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment. That opinion was released yesterday, July 9th.

    While the Court ruled that inside the Post Office itself was a sensitive place, it acknowledged Bonidy's right to carry in and secure his firearm within his car, while on the parking lot of the Post Office.

    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.

    The above is from the memorandum opinion. The Judgment awards §1988 costs to Bonidy.
     

    Attachments

    • Bonidy Judgment.pdf
      21.5 KB · Views: 117
    • Bonidy Opinion.pdf
      53.9 KB · Views: 174

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    I wonder how they'll define ready access to essential services? Firearms allowed in the PO Box/self service half, but prohibited beyond the doors/gate into the manned section?
    An exterior walk-up or drive-up window would be great in a perfect world, but Grandma trying to both hold her foot on the brake and remember where grandson Timmy lives or where her coin purse is could lead to even more aggravation than disarming and going inside.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    This is a very good ruling, albeit only binding at the CO District level.

    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.

    Referencing "Public Interest", from Heller, they say:
    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.

    As someone who works at a .gov facility, I'm greeted with a "No Firearms permitted at this Facility" sign twice every day...one as I enter through the security gate, before getting into the parking garage. The second after I leave the parking garage and enter into the building where I work.

    Even though I work all hours, I can NOT legally leave a firearm in my vehicle in the parking garage at my place of work.

    Ergo, I enjoy this non-binding piece from the ruling:
    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.
    :thumbsup:
     
    Last edited:

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Looks like Peterson may have a positive impact after all. The court has gone a step further than the 10th circuit and declared open carry as protected by the 2a. I hope the government appeals and the 10th at least declares that carry outside the home is indeed protected.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,308
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom