Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

press1280 · Jul 11, 2013

Wait a second. This is the District Court for Colorado, and Denver is in Colorado, and Denver has an open carry ban. Does this judgement pave the way for a Peterson part deux? It can't be a CO resident because then a court will tell them to just go get a CCW and a non-resident from a reciprocal state will also be told to go get a CCW. Presumably an out of state resident from a non-reciprocal state who regularly goes to Denver.

Peaceful John · Jul 11, 2013

Definition of "sensitive place" (bottom of page 5):
"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 . . ."

Why carry of a firearm should not be allowed (bottom of page 10):
". . . 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."

This is just dicta, isn't it? I would not like to see a sensitive place defined as the court does here, because the floating definition used could cover almost anywhere and a given place could be sensitive (under the court's definition) one moment and inert the next.

Neither would I like to see the carry of firearms restricted to places where (a) no passions may be excited; (b) excited passions may not lead to the use of the firearm, or (c) someone could (not) attempt to take the firearm from its lawful owner and use it for criminal purposes." I cannot at this moment think of many public places where these conditions could never be found.

Declaration that open carry is the protected right (middle of page 5).
"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."

That part is obviously not dicta and is clearly part of the judgement.

press1280 · Oct 20, 2013

Anyone with Pacer access have any 10th Circuit updates? I'm thinking this case's importance grew with Woollard's cert denial.

krucam · Oct 25, 2013

press1280 said:
Anyone with Pacer access have any 10th Circuit updates? I'm thinking this case's importance grew with Woollard's cert denial.

Thanks for the nudge....yes, there is a significant update in Bonidy from early Sept.

There is an Appeal from the State on 9/6, AND a Cross-Appeal from the good guys on 9/18 from the District Court.

07/09/2013 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 32 and 33[RECAP] : 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. The other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 7/9/2013.(rpmcd) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/09/2013 45 JUDGMENT by Clerk and Approved by Court re 44 : 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.The other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied. Plaintiffs Tad Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights shall have their costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of entry of judgment, by Clerk on 7/9/2013. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

07/16/2013 46 Proposed Bill of Costs by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Main Document STIPULATION AS TO BILL OF COSTS)(Manley, James) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/16/2013 47 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 1,530.65 against Defendants (ervsl, ) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

09/06/2013 48 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, 45 Clerk's Judgment,, by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin, United States Postal Service (Olson, Lisa) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 49 LETTER Transmitting Notice of Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee not paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record)(dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/06/2013 50 USCA Case Number 13-1374 for 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/18/2013 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL as to 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment 45 Clerk's Judgment by Plaintiffs Tab Bonidy, National Association for Gun Rights (Filing fee $ 455, Receipt Number 1082-3540103) (Manley, James) (Modified on 9/19/2013 to indicate cross appeal) (dbrow, ). (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/19/2013 52 LETTER Transmitting Notice of Cross Appeal to all counsel advising of the transmittal of the 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy to the U.S. Court of Appeals. ( Retained Counsel, Fee paid,) (Attachments: # 1 Docket Sheet, # 2 Preliminary Record)(dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/19/2013 53 USCA Case Number 13-1391 for 51 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy. (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)

09/20/2013 54 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re 48 Notice of Appeal by Defendants Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin, John Potter, Steve Ruehle, United States Postal Service (Olson, Lisa) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

09/20/2013 55 LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 48 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Kervin, Patrick Donahoe, United States Postal Service. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file.( Appeal No. 13-1374) Text Only Entry (dbrow, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)

10/01/2013 56 LETTER TO USCA and all counsel certifying the record is complete as to 51 NOTICE OF Cross APPEAL, filed by National Association for Gun Rights, Tab Bonidy. A transcript order form was filed stating that the necessary transcript is already on file. ( Appeal No. 13-1391) Text Only Entry (dbrow, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)

Complete Docket at District:
http://ia600500.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cod.122068/gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html

The case then moved on to CA10 as Case # 13-1374 for .gov, 13-1391 for Plaintiff's. These should be consolidated at some point I believe.

13-1374 said:
09/20/2013 Open Document [10109883] Notice filed that the transcript is already on file in the district court filed by Mr. Daniel Tenny for USPS, Patrick Donahoe and Mr. Michael Kervin. Served on: 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374] DT

09/20/2013 [10109904] Minute order filed - Notice due that record is complete by 09/30/2013 for Jeffrey P. Colwell, Clerk of Court. (Text Only - No Attachment) [13-1374]

09/20/2013 Open Document [10109910] Notice of deficient docketing statement received from Patrick Donahoe, Mr. Michael Kervin and USPS. Type of deficiency: The orders and judgments were not attached. Corrected docketing statement or an errata sheet is due on 09/30/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374]

09/20/2013 Open Document [10109960] Docketing statement filed by Patrick Donahoe, Mr. Michael Kervin and USPS. Served on 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374] DT

09/20/2013 [10109999] Filed notice record is complete. Served on 09/20/2012. [13-1374] TEXT ONLY ENTRY.

09/20/2013 [10110322] Notice of appearance submitted by James Martin Manley; Steven James Lechner for Appellees Mr. Tab Bonidy and National Association for Gun Rights for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 09/20/2013. Manner of Service: email. [13-1374]--[Edited 09/23/2013 by LG to remove PDF from entry, as pleading was filed on 9/23/2013] JMM

09/23/2013 Open Document [10110343] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Steven J. Lechner, Esq. and Mr. James Martin Manley for Mr. Tab Bonidy and National Association for Gun Rights. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 09/23/2013. Manner of Service: email [13-1374]

09/27/2013 Open Document [10112075] Notice of Mediation Conference filed by the Tenth Circuit Mediation Office. Case is referred for mediation conferencing; conference scheduled for 10/07/2013 at 10:00 am (MDT). Please review the attached Notice for additional information. [13-1374, 13-1391]

10/01/2013 Open Document [10113197] Cross-appeal briefing schedule set. Issued on 10/01/2013. First brief on cross-appeal is due on 11/12/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. Appellants' appendix is due on 11/12/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374, 13-1391]

10/18/2013 Open Document [10117926] On the court's own motion and pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 33.1, order filed by (CLK) extending time to file first brief on cross-appeal and appendix until 11/20/2013 for Patrick Donahoe, Michael Kervin and United States Postal Service. [13-1374, 13-1391]

We should have the opening briefs at CA10 by 11/20/2013.

Reminder that the CO District Court in their ruling held that open carry outside the home is protected under the Second Amendment.

:thumbsup:

Al Norris · Oct 25, 2013

Mark? I was about to do exactly what you just did. I "updated" the district court docket late last night. I hoped it would show up this morning. No luck. I assume you also recapped the docket?

Check this (file listing) out:

Code:

gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.0.pdf                    10-Oct-2010 13:33               93929
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.0.pdf_meta.txt           10-Oct-2010 13:33                 549
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.1.pdf                    10-Oct-2010 14:02              217723
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.1.pdf_meta.txt           10-Oct-2010 14:02                 550
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.2.pdf                    10-Oct-2010 14:03               62232
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.1.2.pdf_meta.txt           10-Oct-2010 14:03                 549
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.10.0.pdf                   22-Jan-2011 07:46              138062
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.10.0.pdf_meta.txt          22-Jan-2011 07:46                 550
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.10.1.pdf                   22-Jan-2011 07:52              181144
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.10.1.pdf_meta.txt          22-Jan-2011 07:52                 550
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.11.0.pdf                   09-Mar-2011 00:15               95762
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.11.0.pdf_meta.txt          09-Mar-2011 00:15                 830
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.12.0.pdf                   17-Feb-2011 00:32                7408
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.12.0.pdf_meta.txt          17-Feb-2011 00:32                 548
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.13.0.pdf                   22-Mar-2011 02:00                8366
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.13.0.pdf_meta.txt          22-Mar-2011 02:00                 829
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.14.0.pdf                   23-Aug-2011 01:07               55817
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.14.0.pdf_meta.txt          23-Aug-2011 01:07                 808
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.15.0.pdf                   10-Apr-2011 16:00               97397
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.15.0.pdf_meta.txt          10-Apr-2011 16:00                 829
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.16.0.pdf                   29-Jun-2011 23:51              255791
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.16.0.pdf_meta.txt          29-Jun-2011 23:51                 809
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.17.0.pdf                   29-Jun-2011 23:56              151793
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.17.0.pdf_meta.txt          29-Jun-2011 23:56                 809
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.17.1.pdf                   20-Nov-2011 21:10              181153
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.17.1.pdf_meta.txt          20-Nov-2011 21:10                 767
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.18.0.pdf                   06-Jul-2011 00:24              141927
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.18.0.pdf_meta.txt          06-Jul-2011 00:24                 809
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.18.1.pdf                   20-Nov-2011 21:13              784037
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.18.1.pdf_meta.txt          20-Nov-2011 21:13                 767
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.19.0.pdf                   24-Jul-2011 08:18               78568
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.19.0.pdf_meta.txt          24-Jul-2011 08:18                 808
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.19.1.pdf                   23-Oct-2011 07:05              724089
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.19.1.pdf_meta.txt          23-Oct-2011 07:05                 767
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.20.0.pdf                   22-Oct-2011 04:28                7407
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.20.0.pdf_meta.txt          22-Oct-2011 04:28                 837
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.21.0.pdf                   19-Nov-2011 08:38                8197
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.21.0.pdf_meta.txt          19-Nov-2011 08:38                 874
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.22.0.pdf                   19-Nov-2011 08:38               11227
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.22.0.pdf_meta.txt          19-Nov-2011 08:38                 875
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.23.0.pdf                   02-Sep-2012 18:09              115671
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.23.0.pdf_meta.txt          02-Sep-2012 18:09                 839
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.24.0.pdf                   12-Dec-2011 17:29               59691
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.24.0.pdf_meta.txt          12-Dec-2011 17:29                 838
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.27.1.pdf                   27-Jun-2012 13:51               42419
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.27.1.pdf_meta.txt          27-Jun-2012 13:51                 766
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.28.0.pdf                   08-Apr-2012 17:51              142223
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.28.0.pdf_meta.txt          08-Apr-2012 17:51                 839
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.31.0.pdf                   28-Jun-2013 10:49              328787
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.31.0.pdf_meta.txt          28-Jun-2013 10:49                 840
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.33.0.pdf                   28-Jun-2013 11:43              336494
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.33.0.pdf_meta.txt          28-Jun-2013 11:43                 840
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.37.0.pdf                   12-May-2013 05:37              210683
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.37.0.pdf_meta.txt          12-May-2013 05:37                 840
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.38.0.pdf                   12-May-2013 05:43               46693
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.38.0.pdf_meta.txt          12-May-2013 05:43                 839
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.39.0.pdf                   12-May-2013 05:45               98004
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.39.0.pdf_meta.txt          12-May-2013 05:45                 839
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.42.0.pdf                   27-Jun-2013 02:45               21130
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.42.0.pdf_meta.txt          27-Jun-2013 02:45                 839
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.5.0.pdf                    05-Nov-2010 12:22               91832
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.5.0.pdf_meta.txt           05-Nov-2010 12:22                 549
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.6.0.pdf                    11-Dec-2010 21:27              126972
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.6.0.pdf_meta.txt           11-Dec-2010 21:27                 550
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.7.0.pdf                    20-Dec-2010 06:59               31279
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.7.0.pdf_meta.txt           20-Dec-2010 06:59                 549
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.7.1.pdf                    20-Dec-2010 06:59               67491
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.7.1.pdf_meta.txt           20-Dec-2010 06:59                 549
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html                28-Jun-2013 13:28               30693
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.html_meta.txt       28-Jun-2013 13:28                 947
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.xml                 28-Jun-2013 13:28               44801
gov.uscourts.cod.122068.docket.xml_meta.txt        28-Jun-2013 13:28                 947
gov.uscourts.cod.122068_files.xml                  28-Jun-2013 13:29               21926
gov.uscourts.cod.122068_meta.xml                   19-Jun-2013 08:32                1287

We have another glitch in not being recapped, even if our systems say it is (same thing is happening with several other cases).-

jpweg5@aol.com · Oct 25, 2013

INMY01TA said:
They don't seem to have a problem with Postal Inspectors carrying on their property.

They are FEDERAL AGENTS, you moron.

Maestro Pistolero · Oct 25, 2013

They are FEDERAL AGENTS, you moron.

Was that necessary?

Boxcab · Oct 28, 2013

jpweg5@aol.com said:
They are FEDERAL AGENTS, you moron.

Almost exactly 3 years to the day... late.

krucam · Dec 15, 2013

Big thanks to Al Norris at TFL for the update. The US Postal Service opened up at CA10 on Appeal first. Their brief is at:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ca10.13-1391/gov.uscourts.ca10.13-1391.docket.html

Since there are 2 cases on Appeal from the 2 parties, we should be having one from Mr Bonidy as well.

CA10 Case 13-1374 was to be the Case # for .gov, 13-1391 for Plaintiff's. They are still distinct (yet intertwined) cases at CA10.

Docket for 13-1374:
http://ia601001.us.archive.org/10/i...13-1374/gov.uscourts.ca10.13-1374.docket.html

Docket for 13-1391:
http://ia601001.us.archive.org/33/i...13-1391/gov.uscourts.ca10.13-1391.docket.html

Al Norris · Dec 16, 2013

Thanks Mark.

I've have recently gotten too much on my plate to post everywhere like I used to.

Armadillofz1 · Dec 17, 2013

Ok, in engrish prease. When I go into the post office and secure my mohaska in the glove box, am I good to go? Or do I have to park OFF postal property?

esqappellate · Dec 17, 2013

Armadillofz1 said:
Ok, in engrish prease. When I go into the post office and secure my mohaska in the glove box, am I good to go? Or do I have to park OFF postal property?

Park OFF federal property, unless you want to be test case. Personally, I have better things to do with my time and money.

Armadillofz1 · Dec 17, 2013

I thought this was all done with. Im in the PO twice a day and its already a pain in the ass AND dangerous to disarm every time i go in.

Al Norris · Dec 17, 2013

The case, as decided at the District Court, applied only to the defendant and only to a specific location in CO.

The USPS is foolish (IMO) to push this into the Appellate Court. An adverse ruling (adverse to the USPS) may very well open up all public parking areas within the 10th Circuit.

There are actually two appeals here, even if they are somewhat related:

1) The USPS says the district court judge was wrong to open the public parking to guns.

2) Bonidy says the Judge was wrong to keep the public areas (specifically the non-secure area that contains the private boxes) of the PO gun free.

Should the Circuit Court agree with the District Judge (affirming that decision), then the USPS loses and we just might see all USPS public parking, within the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit, open to guns in the car. I don't see the court agreeing with Bonidy. I believe that the court will keep guns out of the building itself.

Stranger things have happened, so I might be wrong.

krucam · Dec 18, 2013

Al Norris said:
The case, as decided at the District Court, applied only to the defendant and only to a specific location in CO.

The USPS is foolish (IMO) to push this into the Appellate Court. An adverse ruling (adverse to the USPS) may very well open up all public parking areas within the 10th Circuit.

There are actually two appeals here, even if they are somewhat related:

1) The USPS says the district court judge was wrong to open the public parking to guns.

2) Bonidy says the Judge was wrong to keep the public areas (specifically the non-secure area that contains the private boxes) of the PO gun free.

Should the Circuit Court agree with the District Judge (affirming that decision), then the USPS loses and we just might see all USPS public parking, within the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit, open to guns in the car. I don't see the court agreeing with Bonidy. I believe that the court will keep guns out of the building itself.

Stranger things have happened, so I might be wrong.

The opening up of .gov parking lots is rather significant IMHO, even if limited to CA10. The Gov't was stupid to appeal the District ruling, but...
Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself.

I unfortunately (in this sense alone) live just outside the fringes of CA10! Here at my new job with the FAA in TX, the exclusion of a parking area from the "Gun Free Zone" mentality would be very welcome. I can understand once within a very sensitive area.

I guess Esqappelate is out of the question as counsel for my being a test case with standing here in CA5....
:innocent0

It would be nice to go to the range after work without running home. I unfortunately had to deal with this for 13 years in MD as well, working on a DoD air field.

[/soapbox]

esqappellate · Dec 18, 2013

krucam said:
The opening up of .gov parking lots is rather significant IMHO, even if limited to CA10. The Gov't was stupid to appeal the District ruling, but...
Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself.

I unfortunately (in this sense alone) live just outside the fringes of CA10! Here at my new job with the FAA in TX, the exclusion of a parking area from the "Gun Free Zone" mentality would be very welcome. I can understand once within a very sensitive area.

I guess Esqappelate is out of the question as counsel for my being a tests case with standing here in CA5....

It would be nice to go to the range after work without running home. I unfortunately had to deal with this for 13 years in MD as well, working on a DoD air field.

[/soapbox]

So sorry, but that's exactly right, I can't

press1280 · Dec 19, 2013

The USPS brief claims they're responsible for patrons' safety yet time after time courts have held the government can't be liable for protecting citizens(except in extremely rare cases which aren't applicable here). In addition, the USPS doesn't have ANY armed security personnel or metal detectors at post offices at least at the one in this case and all the post offices I've ever been to.

OEH · Dec 19, 2013

press1280 said:
The USPS brief claims they're responsible for patrons' safety yet time after time courts have held the government can't be liable for protecting citizens(except in extremely rare cases which aren't applicable here). In addition, the USPS doesn't have ANY armed security personnel or metal detectors at post offices at least at the one in this case and all the post offices I've ever been to.

They claim that they are responsible, then claim that there have been a number of crimes against patrons in the parking area... I can't imagine that those are good things to say in court. :facepalm:

Rack&Roll · Dec 19, 2013

If I recall the wording on the posted firearms warning at the Post Office, I believe that it prohibits unauthorized persons from being on the USPS property with firearms. It appears to warn criminals that they will be arrested if found with an illegal firearm at the P.O.

Do I have this right?

Benanov · Dec 20, 2013

Rack&Roll said:
If I recall the wording on the posted firearms warning at the Post Office, I believe that it prohibits unauthorized persons from being on the USPS property with firearms. It appears to warn criminals that they will be arrested if found with an illegal firearm at the P.O.

Do I have this right?

No, I think they don't authorize anyone.

It's not like "going postal" is apocryphal. The USPS is pretty scared of firearms.

Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Spud Head

jimbobboy

Active Member

MSI EM

Ultimate Member

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Active Member

R.I.P

PM Bomber

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics