Laws & Rights
Why Are Guns Banned in Post Offices, Anyway?
If the answer to that question is, “Well, that’s just how it is,” then we should ask again, more loudly.
For decades, we gun owners have simply accepted that if we’re going to carry concealed, we can’t go to the post office. It’s been illegal to bring a firearm into a post office since 1972, but, like all “gun free zones,” criminals feel completely free to ignore it. There was a highly publicized post-office mass shooting in 1986, 14 years after the ban, and carried out by a disgruntled employee, not a citizen customer. (For you whippersnappers, the Edmond, Oklahoma massacre is where we got the phrase “going postal.”)
So here’s the real question: If the Second Amendment specifically says that the government cannot infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then why are government-owned facilities allowed to ban guns? That’s the question the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is asking right now, and they’re doing it in a Texas federal court. Here’s what SAF has to say about it:
“The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuitย in Texas challenging theย ban on firearms carry in U.S. Post Offices and on postal property as violations of the Second Amendment, andย is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Joining SAF is the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Gavin Pate and George Mandry, bothย Texas residents. Named as the sole defendant is Attorney General Merrick Garland, in his official capacity. Theย complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys R. Brent Cooper and S. Hunter Walton at Cooper & Scully, P.C. inย Dallas, and David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.
โUnder the Bruen ruling of June 2022,โ noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, โifย the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a โsensitive place,โ it must prove that itsย current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a well-established and representative historical analogue.โ
โCurrent federal law bars the โknowing possessionโ of firearms in federal facilities, which includes postย offices,โ said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. โMillions of legally armed private citizens, whose dailyย routines may include visits to post offices to pick up or drop off mail, are directly impacted by thisย infringement. There is no well-established, representative historical analogue to justify this regulation, whichย violates the Second Amendment.โ
-
By Interest24 hours ago
Win a Firearm of Your Choice โ USCCA Giveaway Now Live!
-
Laws & Rights2 weeks ago
New President, New Precedent! U.S. Government Directly Supports Hawaiian Gun Owners
-
Laws & Rights1 month ago
I Take It All Back: David Hogg is a GIFT
-
By Interest3 weeks ago
Why Do “Gun Buybacks” Keep Going Hilariously Wrong?
-
Laws & Rights1 month ago
12 MOA Drop: Bondi’s 2A Task Force Should Focus on 12 States
-
Laws & Rights1 week ago
DNC’s Anti-Gun Animal Farm Slops Hogg
-
Laws & Rights2 months ago
Dem Senators: Just Like You and Me, Only BETTER!
-
Laws & Rights1 month ago
Why Are Anti-Gunners So Violent? Capri Hookah Lounge Edition