bonidy vs usps in colorado ccw in post office lot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes i read this yesterday, i bet the usps tries to delay any changes to their policies.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk II
 
Huh, so dudley and his organization finally did something useful. I always though RMGO and later NAGR were more like his personal bank account. I wish they would have supported Peterson v LaCabe/Martinez. That would have been a far better victory, at least for Coloradans and visitors. Congratulations to Mr. Bonidy for seeing it through.

What are the ramifications of this decision, besides the obvious?
 
does this have national ramifications or only pertain to this state?

Not even in the state. The order:
ORDERED, that the Defendants take such action as is necessary to permit Tab Bonidy to use the public parking lot adjacent to the Avon Post Office Building with a firearm authorized by his Concealed Carry Permit secured in his car in a reasonably prescribed manner, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the other claims of unconstitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) made by Plaintiffs are denied.

So really, it only applies to a single person and a single parking lot. It sets some precedence, though, which can be used elsewhere.
 
I wonder if this will have implications beyond this post office and Colorado? It drives me nuts to have to park at the Jiffy Lube, cut though bushes, generally in the rain, just so I don't run afoul of the law for having a lawfully-owned and carried handgun in my car.
 
Hmmm...an interesting quote from that link:

The district court ruled, “openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment [and the] parking lot adjacent to [Avon’s Post Office Building] is not a sensitive place [such that] an absolute ban on firearms is substantially related to [Defendants’] important public safety objective.”

The bold emphasis is mine...
 
Scimmia said:
...it only applies to a single person and a single parking lot. It sets some precedence, though, which can be used elsewhere...
No, it is not precedent. It is a ruling of a Federal District Court -- the trial court level in the federal system. Such rulings do not create precedent. It might encourage other judges in other matters to adopt the same view, but they wouldn't be required to.
 
bikemutt said:
I wonder if this will have implications beyond this post office and Colorado?...
This is only a trial court ruling and is not law beyond these parties in the case. It is not precedent. While it could have an influence on future rulings in other cases, that can't be counted on.
 
No, it is not precedent. It is a ruling of a Federal District Court -- the trial court level in the federal system. Such rulings do not create precedent. It might encourage other judges in other matters to adopt the same view, but they wouldn't be required to.

Unless I'm way off base here, persuasive precedent is still precedent.
 
Scimmia said:
Unless I'm way off base here, persuasive precedent is still precedent.
Sorry, but you are off. Trial court rulings really aren't any type of precedent. "Persuasive" precedent really isn't precedent. It is not controlling or binding on other courts, and the term is usually used to refer to ruling of particularly influential or highly regarded courts of appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top