National Post Office Ban No More

[44Brent]

Conclusion on page 41

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/klvydgelepg/01122024ayala.pdf

Bruce

If you are really convinced that some order exists that protects you are anyone else from being arrested from carrying in a P.O. Box, there's one way to prove you really believe it. Make a video of yourself open carrying in a PO Box anywhere in the country. Just park yourself there and make sure the employees see you, and wait 30 minutes. For a faster response, do it in a blue state like Illinois.

Print out of copy of this and take it with you. See if it you stops you from being arrested.

 

[CamoDeafie]

View: https://youtu.be/cWBb71nwQbk?si=zh4mtFZw-yJlXfRU


A lawyer with a lot more experience and knowledge of Supreme Court and Federal District Court decisions; seems to say yes indeed, that order means that under Heller and Bruen; the federal ban on carry of firearms within post offices, does not meet the requirements of Heller and Bruen, in that the Feds couldn't prove a historical tradition of banning carry in post offices. Therefore the indicement/charge of illegally carrying of firearms in postal offices has been dismissed with prejudice.

 

[User 1234]

View: https://youtu.be/cWBb71nwQbk?si=zh4mtFZw-yJlXfRU


A lawyer with a lot more experience and knowledge of Supreme Court and Federal District Court decisions; seems to say yes indeed, that order means that under Heller and Bruen; the federal ban on carry of firearms within post offices, does not meet the requirements of Heller and Bruen, in that the Feds couldn't prove a historical tradition of banning carry in post offices. Therefore the indicement/charge of illegally carrying of firearms in postal offices has been dismissed with prejudice.

No, that ruling is absolutely not what this thread title says. That one individual had his criminal charge dismissed by a trial judge. It does not protect other people who decide to carry in a post office. They would likely be arrested and charged. Then their lawyer would make the same argument under Bruen and also cite to this existing decision as a persuasive, but not binding, example.

Until there is a federal judge issuing an injunction forbidding the federal government to stop enforcing this post office carry ban, they probably will continue to do so.

 

[44Brent]

No, that ruling is absolutely not what this thread title says. That one individual had his criminal charge dismissed by a trial judge. It does not protect other people who decide to carry in a post office. They would likely be arrested and charged. Then their lawyer would make the same argument under Bruen and also cite to this existing decision as a persuasive, but not binding, example.

Until there is a federal judge issuing an injunction forbidding the federal government to stop enforcing this post office carry ban, they probably will continue to do so.

You are correct. It is a mystery to me how people can read a headline published in the news and then instantly jump to conclusions without applying any critical thinking skills. I have to wonder how many people in this country (even on this site) have taken a high school civics course. The things I see on pro 2nd forums are quite astonishing. I remember seeing a few days ago that someone thought they could just get thousands of people to send a petition to the Supreme Court and that would cause the Supreme Court to pro-actively overturn gun laws that have never even passed review by appellate courts.

 

[User 1234]

"But YouTube said….."


Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night? No, but I do speak with authority on YouTube! I am Intergalactic Delegate to the Online Videocasting Council of Knowledge and Wisdom.

Half of the YouTube presenters remind me of the Black Books episode where Bernard Black, the neurotic alcoholic bookseller; impersonates a lawyer to scare his friend's landlord. He uses random Latin phrases under his slurred speech. It's a quite funny episode.

 

[gearhead]

The title of this thread is

Post Office Ban No More

How did you reach that conclusion? Do you have a copy of an actual injunction issued by a judge baring the government from enforcing the ban? Or, did you just infer that an injunction exists, from a news story headline?

A dismissal of a criminal charge against a single defendant does not constitute an injunction that prevents police from arresting other people and charging them with the same offense. To achieve that, there has to be a civil suit specifically seeking that type of relief across the country for the federal laws. Then, what about state level laws? Each of those needs a separate civil lawsuit to issue injunctions against those on a state by state basis.

This is really critical stuff. If a person reads your headline and decides to run out and do an open carry in a PO they very well could get arrested, and find out that the hard way to not read these types of headlines and just assume they now have some new rights.

If a person makes a decision based on reading the headline alone, they deserve what they get.

 

[GrayGoose]

Concealed is concealed. Just don't be a dick and carry on...

 

[Member 85894]

Never forget, the real punishment, (right or wrong), is the actual "Process"