Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

kcbrown · Jun 26, 2015

esqappellate said:
I think that is correct.

That must have been a hard admission for you. I salute your honesty and integrity, sir.

Now that you've recognized that, how does that change your opinion of the appellate courts and/or the judges who comprise them?

You needn't answer if doing so would compromise your job in any way, of course.

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

cad68m_m · Jun 26, 2015

Firearms Policy Coalition on Bonidy

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news...il&utm_term=0_4196dc23eb-48dd1fed8f-116878309

esqappellate · Jun 26, 2015

kcbrown said:
That must have been a hard admission for you. I salute your honesty and integrity, sir.

Now that you've recognized that, how does that change your opinion of the appellate courts and/or the judges who comprise them?

You needn't answer if doing so would compromise your job in any way, of course.

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

KC, I wasn't born yesterday. I am 65 and been an appellate lawyer for 40 years. I have been subjected to more result-oriented decisions than I care to count. That the courts, or more precisely, some judges, have been hostile to the 2A is undeniable and I don't really think I've ever denied that. The 10th Circuit's decision on Bonidy is not that remarkable on the merits -- the USPS has long banned guns on federal property (notwithstanding its reputation for its employees going "postal"). It actually came out exactly as I thought it would as a TP&M case. And it still drew a strong dissent. The case was always a stretch. I still take the long view about the 2A -- the court of appeals were united in holding prior to Heller that the 2A did not embody an individual right. I'm not dead yet.

kcbrown · Jun 26, 2015

esqappellate said:
KC, I wasn't born yesterday. I am 65 and been an appellate lawyer for 40 years. I have been subjected to more result-oriented decisions than I care to count. That the courts, or more precisely, some judges, have been hostile to the 2A is undeniable and I don't really think I've ever denied that.

The problem is that "some judges" appears to encompass the majority of them, just based on statistics alone at the appellate level.

I agree that you've not ever denied that some judges have been hostile to the 2nd Amendment, but I do get the impression that you believed (and perhaps you still do) that most judges are honest, fair, and adhere to law (most especially the Constitution), precedent, and the logical implications of those things. The behavior we've seen from most of the judges who have had a chance to weigh in on this subject thus far betrays that belief (whether or not that's a belief you actually hold or held is something only you can say), at least as regards the 2nd Amendment. Which is to say, those very same judges may be exactly as I recall you having described them as regards other issues, but this issue is quite obviously different. For which other issues has the entire federal judiciary rebelled against both a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of same? I know of none.

What we are seeing before our eyes is entirely unprecedented as far as I know. And utterly predictable.

The 10th Circuit's decision on Bonidy is not that remarkable on the merits -- the USPS has long banned guns on federal property (notwithstanding its reputation for its employees going "postal").

"Has long banned guns on federal property" (emphasis mine) is a bit of a misstatement, seeing how the ban in question dates back only to 1972.

It actually came out exactly as I thought it would as a TP&M case. And it still drew a strong dissent. The case was always a stretch. I still take the long view about the 2A -- the court of appeals were united in holding prior to Heller that the 2A did not embody an individual right. I'm not dead yet.

In the face of what amounts to wholesale rebellion against the 2nd Amendment by the lower courts (something you've admitted to yourself, at least as regards the appellate courts), combined with the refusal of the Supreme Court to do anything about it, exactly what is the "long view" about the 2nd Amendment as regards the judiciary that involves anything other than its utter destruction?

press1280 · Jun 27, 2015

esqappellate said:
KC, I wasn't born yesterday. I am 65 and been an appellate lawyer for 40 years. I have been subjected to more result-oriented decisions than I care to count. That the courts, or more precisely, some judges, have been hostile to the 2A is undeniable and I don't really think I've ever denied that. The 10th Circuit's decision on Bonidy is not that remarkable on the merits -- the USPS has long banned guns on federal property (notwithstanding its reputation for its employees going "postal"). It actually came out exactly as I thought it would as a TP&M case. And it still drew a strong dissent. The case was always a stretch. I still take the long view about the 2A -- the court of appeals were united in holding prior to Heller that the 2A did not embody an individual right. I'm not dead yet.

Why do you think this case was a stretch (specifically the parking lot, I'll throw out the building)?

esqappellate · Jun 27, 2015

press1280 said:
Why do you think this case was a stretch (specifically the parking lot, I'll throw out the building)?

The parking lot is part of the usps curtilage and is federal property 18 USC930 prohibits guns basically wherever federal employees work. A challenge to section 930 will never succeed

pilotguy299 · Jun 28, 2015

esqappellate said:
The parking lot is part of the usps curtilage and is federal property 18 USC930 prohibits guns basically wherever federal employees work. A challenge to section 930 will never succeed

You are probably right.

But I would like to know what "they" believe "or other lawful purposes." in (d)(3) means, seeing as how carrying by LE is already covered in (d)(1).

press1280 · Jun 28, 2015

Most disappointing about this wasn't that the USPS won on the parking lot or the building, that's small potatoes.
What happened was the court taking the typical out that other courts are taking. From 10th Circuit precedence I would have thought they would have said open carry was protected.

esqappellate · Sep 9, 2015

Today (9/9/2015), the 10th Circuit denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc without dissent

wolfwood · Sep 9, 2015

Well sounds like they have 60 days to file a writ for the Supreme Court

esqappellate · Sep 9, 2015

wolfwood said:
Well sounds like they have 60 days to file a writ for the Supreme Court

Under the rules, 90 days. This a weak case. I rather hope they don't file for cert.

press1280 · Sep 9, 2015

esqappellate said:
Today (9/9/2015), the 10th Circuit denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc without dissent

Did it say what the vote was?

esqappellate · Sep 12, 2015

press1280 said:
Did it say what the vote was?

No vote was held. See attached.

press1280 · Sep 16, 2015

esqappellate said:
No vote was held. See attached.

Although I wasn't expecting much, it's sad we only got one vote. You can bet if the roles were reversed (Their side had the weak case), all Dem-appointees would vote to en banc. Our judges basically will avoid en banc.

press1280 · Jan 6, 2016

Bonidy filed for cert in early December http://blog.californiarighttocarry....-8-Bonidy-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-746.htm

Armadillofz1 · Jan 6, 2016

This is why our country is in this state. 51 pages of horsesh!t to say "can i leave my damn gun in my damn car?"

kcbrown · Jan 6, 2016

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

.
.
.

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! That phrasing is so full of awesome.

It sucks that the Supreme Court will, of course, deny cert here.

CrueChief · Jan 7, 2016

kcbrown said:
LOL! That phrasing is so full of awesome.

It sucks that the Supreme Court will, of course, deny cert here.

It's not so much that they will deny cert, the absurd part is that a citizen even needs to ask the question in the first place. :sad20:

press1280 · Jan 7, 2016

kcbrown said:
LOL! That phrasing is so full of awesome.

It sucks that the Supreme Court will, of course, deny cert here.

This is the other question presented: 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.

I'm doubting SCOTUS takes it too. I think this case would have been good if public carry had been affirmed by SCOTUS but we're not there yet.

press1280 · Jan 31, 2016

Amicus of Firearm Owners Against Crime: http://blog.californiarighttocarry....3/No.-15-746-Proof-Prince-Law-Office.docx.pdf

Colorado Couple Challenge USPS Ban Of Firearms on Postal Property

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Super Genius

Member MSI, SAF, NRA

President, MSI

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Super Genius

Cocker Dad/RIP Bella

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics