Lawsuit Challenges Gun Ban in Post Offices

article image

A federal judge has ruled that a Colorado couple's lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service's ban on guns in post offices can proceed.

Debbie and Tab Bonidy sued the Postal Service last year, saying the ban violates their Second Amendment rights. Both have concealed weapons permits and carry their guns wherever they go.

However, they don't get mail service at their rural address, so they have to go to the local post office to get their daily mail. Since guns are banned in the post office and its parking lot, they say they are unable to get their mail.

In its motion to dismiss the suit, the Postal Service said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that while people have the right to possess guns, they can also be banned in "sensitive places." Post offices are such places, the motion argued.

Large numbers of people from all walks of life gather on postal property every day... The Postal Service is thus responsible for the protection of its employees and all the members of the public who enter postal property.

Besides, the motion said, the couple could easily park their car on the street, leave their guns inside the car, then go to the post office and get their mail.

The judge rejected the arguments and allowed the suit to go forward, much to the delight of their lawyer who said this could be a landmark case.

"This is a situation that hasn't been challenged before, where you have members of the general public who want to exercise their right to carry," said attorney James Manley.

fsilber's picture

Since the Bill of Rights originally constrained only government at the Federal level, it seems to me that property controlled by Federal law should have _less_ authority to ban guns, not more.

Larry Arnold's picture

If the Post Office (or any other venue) is so "sensitive" I can't legally carry with a CHL, isn't it "sensitive" enough to require metal detector security to keep people from carrying illegally?

Larry Arnold

John Longenecker_2's picture

Another issue is the statement on the record, "The Postal Service is thus responsible for the protection of its employees and all the members of the public who enter postal property." The Postal Service is not responsible for safety, except within reason, such as dry floors and such. It's up to patrons to be safe, and gun bans don't work when some thug breaks the rules. You can't have it both ways: gun ban in the name of safety brings liability with it for interference with the citizen's right to take reasonable measures for personal safety. Without liability for such an interference, there is no accountability, and accountability in in short supply.

Documenting these arguments means a record of reasonable protest against the unreasonable practice of civilian disarmament. Keep it coming.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter