354
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.

The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 158 points 2 years ago

Now do courthouses and see how well that goes.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Restrictions on carry in court houses would likely pass the Bruen test.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago

I don't see any reason why a court should be treated any differently though.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 years ago

Well yeah, the Courts make up rules and tests to advance whatever agenda is on the docket. They work backwards from the result they want.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

What historical analog can you point to that wouldn’t also apply to post offices?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 95 points 2 years ago

You know what else is public? Courthouses.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 74 points 2 years ago

Florida is such a shit hole.

[-] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

We're not "such a shit hole". We're an exquisite shit hole.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zoidberg@lemm.ee 47 points 2 years ago

We should make sure it's also unconstitutional to block guns at:

  • Courthouses
  • GOP conventions
  • Political rallies
  • NRA conventions
[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Jesus Christ. Can you imagine families of the defendant and victim along with the jury all being armed when the verdict gets read at a murder trial?

I've been a juror on a murder trial and even with current regulations banning guns, we got armed escorts out the back of the building after the verdict.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago

I wonder how the court would respond to a petition to allow firearms in court rooms. It's a god-given American freedom, guaranteed by the second amendment right?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 34 points 2 years ago

Cool, so the place that mass shootings in the US began, and coined its own phrase, now must allow armed nut jobs inside. What could go wrong!?

[-] Ultragramps@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 2 years ago

The USPS has been abused by DeJoy, another trump appointee, who filled the fleet with more gas vehicles with less efficiency than previous models. That and removing public mail boxes for “reasons that totally didn’t have to do with mail-in voting helping Democrats win elections, promise.”

[-] BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It wasn't just blue boxes, he also shut down sorting machines, slowing mail processing in another attempt to delay mail-in ballots. Luckily we weren't sending these off to get sorted at the plant and would take them to the town hall directly which probably helped circumvent a lot of late ballots. Can't say this was done in every office but in my local area I know we did that.

Edit: a word

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago

Going postal now legal in Florida.

load more comments (39 replies)
[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

This is a ridiculous ruling, but the reason the ban on guns in post offices makes many gun owners so angry is that unlike pretty much any other no-gun zone laws, it includes all of the property, including the parking lot.

So if a licensed person removes their gun and leaves it in the car so they can go into the post office, they've still committed a felony by parking there.

So instead they'll park in the street. And if the lot is mostly empty and there's a car parked in the street in front of the post office, it's a bright neon sign to thieves that breaking into that car will score them a gun.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 31 points 2 years ago

Turns out there's a surprisingly simple way to avoid that whole situation...

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 20 points 2 years ago

These people are out of their fucking minds. Nothing’s ever enough.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Post office workers' safety ruled uNcONStItuTiONaL

Jesus fucking Christ guys

[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

I need a gun when I go to the post office to protect myself from the postal workers when they decide to go postal.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago

Bunch of scared insecure children on the right. Recommend a listen to Malcolm Gladwell 6 part series on gun violence for the history of the rights obsession with 2A.

[-] Dehydrated@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

I WILL FIGHT FOR MY FREEDOM IN THE POST OFFICE

NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE MY GUNS

/s

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So the reason she used in her ruling is that the law about not having guns in post offices was passed in 1972. Which is pants on head crazy. Under that reasoning it's not about what powers to regulate there were traditionally. It's about specific case details, like qualified immunity. The federal government has absolutely maintained an ability to say no guns in sensitive areas from day 1 of the USA. But because they didn't get around to post offices until 1972, it's illegal to make guns illegal in post offices.

Which is not the standard SCOTUS set in Bruen. According to their standard it would be sufficient to prove early Americans would approve of such laws by finding similar laws. Not requiring that they had the same exact law.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago

I want to open carry an ar15 in an MRI room. If you prohibit that, you are violating my constitutional rights!

If you say that there are exceptions to those rights the I think we have a crack that we need to rip open juuuuust a little wider.

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I love how open carry was banned in California by Republican legislation and the law was signed by fucking none other than conservative golden calf, Ronald Reagan.

And why? Because the Black Panthers were making white people nervous.

There's no moral or logical consistency until you realize everything they do is self serving and any given stance is subject to change whenever convenient.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
354 points (97.3% liked)

News

35749 readers
2334 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS