RSS
Home
Post office parking lot off limits to firearms
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Last week, David Codrea announced that a United States Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment does not prohibit a post office regulation banning firearms from its facilities. Mike Stollenwork followed up with an article pointing out that the post office is taking the position that its firearm ban applies not only to the building and the working parking lot involved in the case, but to the public parking lot in front of the post office building, where you might park your car to check your mail, even though people can mail firearms under certain circumstances.
What this means is that the post office wants to prosecute you for a federal crime even if you leave your gun in the car when checking your mail. In order to comply with the post office's mandate, you will need to go home and lock up your firearm before traveling disarmed to the post office.
The post office gun ban has no effect on armed crime
Who needs to carry a firearm at the post office? Well, maybe you, if you were in a Georgia post office when two armed men with ski masks entered to rob it.
Authorities are looking for two suspects they say robbed an Effingham County post office at gunpoint.
Around noon Wednesday, deputies say two men wearing masks robbed the post office in Eden on Highway 80.
Thankfully, these violent predators have now been caught, and other examples could be given, but these incidents highlight the fact that the post office gun ban obviously does not work on violent criminals. To whom, then, do they mean for this federal law to apply? The answer is you.
When you could be stabbed to death merely for accidentally bumping into the wrong person in front of a post office, why should you be the target of a federal law disarming you in front of the post office?
A discussion of Dorosan's arguments on appeal
Strangely, the federal case raised only one issue on appeal. The sole argument was that the post office regulation violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since the Supreme Court in Heller basically forecast already that the Second Amendment would not protect the possession of firearms in government buildings, it is difficult to understand why this was the appellant's only argument.
Why did he not argue that the post office regulation exceeded the scope of the authorizing statute?
Why did he not argue for a textual analysis of the "hunting or other lawful purposes" language in the law? Is self defense not among "other lawful purposes?"
Why did he not argue for a reversal of the OSHA regulation ruling made by the district court?
Why did he not argue that the sign posting requirement meant that the regulation could not possibly apply to a parking lot, where there was no sign posted for notice?
This Fifth Circuit decision leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
