U.S. District Judge Strikes Down Post Office Ban

[rtroha]

Only a district ruling so no effect for anyone except for the defendant but still nice to see. Especially here in Ohio where Ohio law makes it a felony to violate any Federal ban.

News article:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-guns-post-offices-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules-2024-01-13/

PDF of ruling:

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

 

[CapnMac]

The case is for a Postal Worker carrying on premises, to make this more amazing (at least to me).

The USPS rule has never had the GFSZ "out" of allowing "licensed carry," and if this advances to Circuit Court, that may be broached, but the ruling is fairly clear-cut, at least to my reading of it.

It does feel, a bit, like "one more brick (fallling out of the) wall" of over-reaching gun regulations. The harder road will be in getting it applied nationally.

 

[Col. Harrumph]

Fun fact: Next town over from mine, the post office has a sign warning that it's an offense to carry in a post office. Interestingly, the sign is inside the post office and can't be seen from the street.

 

[JohnKSa]

There's another good lesson in there too. The guy may turn out to be right that it was his constitutional right to carry in the Post Office, BUT the judge..."...declined to dismiss a separate charge for forcibly resisting arrest."

Don't get caught up in the moment and do something stupid that can't be undone. If the guy had been smart and just gone with the officer, he'd be home free right now. Instead because he chose to resist the arrest, he's still in pretty serious trouble.

 

[ilbob]

Do we know he actually resisted arrest?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I hope one day soon the post office no-carry rule will be struck down everywhere.

 

[JDeere]

I hope one day soon the post office no-carry rule will be struck down everywhere.

Until then I wont test the waters. It's just not worth the hassle to mess with the feds at this point in time...

 

[CDW4ME]

PSA on the topic of post offices:
Stamps are available at Wal-Mart, stamps can be delivered to your home, USPS will pick up packages at your home, there are other shipping services where it is not illegal to carry there, point being unless one has a post office box, or works at the post office, one could (in theory) avoid (try to) going inside the post office if they explored other options.

If before the post office box, in the post office, just can't be avoided, okay then. (Inferred is/was no need to quote and tell me that)

 

[old lady new shooter]

Until then I wont test the waters. It's just not worth the hassle to mess with the feds at this point in time...

I don't care so much about not being armed inside the post office, but I do care about driving back and forth and being unarmed in the parking lot. Not willing to leave my gun in the car. So I grit my teeth, and only go straight there and straight home. I do wear a knife, but it's a far second choice to a gun.

 

[JohnKSa]

Do we know he actually resisted arrest?

What we know is that his charge for forcibly resisting arrest was not dropped. He'll still have to address that charge either with a trial or with some kind of a plea. It will cost him legal fees and time and perhaps a fine and prison time.

The point is that even if you are right and it turns out you weren't breaking the law, if you resist arrest, that charge won't automatically go away just because the main charge that instigated the arrest does. There's a lesson in there for people who are inclined to learn lessons.

 

[JEBruns]

Until then I wont test the waters. It's just not worth the hassle to mess with the feds at this point in time...

If you live in a free state, I'd think this same ruling would be made, especially since the ice has already been broken on it. But yeah, I wouldn't push it in, say, California.

 

[JDeere]

I don't care so much about not being armed inside the post office, but I do care about driving back and forth and being unarmed in the parking lot. Not willing to leave my gun in the car. So I grit my teeth, and only go straight there and straight home. I do wear a knife, but it's a far second choice to a gun.

I don't worry about the parking lot. It's not posted so I leave mine in the truck as I'm not in there that long.

 

[Steve Milbocker]

The post office where I live now, northern Michigan, has a metal detector. That’s the first time I’ve seen this in the various Michigan towns I’ve lived in

 

[rtroha]

If you live in a free state, I'd think this same ruling would be made, especially since the ice has already been broken on it. But yeah, I wouldn't push it in, say, California.

Since this was a federal court, I would think which state one resides in matters less than which president appointed that judge.

 

[Styx]

What we know is that his charge for forcibly resisting arrest was not dropped. He'll still have to address that charge either with a trial or with some kind of a plea. It will cost him legal fees and time and perhaps a fine and prison time.

The point is that even if you are right and it turns out you weren't breaking the law, if you resist arrest, that charge won't automatically go away just because the main charge that instigated the arrest does. There's a lesson in there for people who are inclined to learn lessons.

Just because LE accused him of doing so doesn't mean he actually did. I "think" that was @ilbob's point.

 

[JohnKSa]

It doesn't even matter whether he actually did it or not--that's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make. The lesson to be learned is the same whether you assume he's guilty or innocent. I'm not arguing that he's guilty of resisting--maybe he is, maybe he's not. But he IS going to have to deal with that charge (lawyer, maybe a trial, lost time, maybe a fine, maybe jailtime, maybe probation) even though his other charge (the one that actually led to the arrest) has gone away.

The point is that the resisting charge he picked up during the arrest didn't go away just because he turned out to be right about it being unconstitutional to prohibit firearms in the post office. I've seen badgecam footage of people who think they are innocent and that their innocence gives them the right to resist arrest. I've even heard people make that claim or some version of it. This case shows us that even if you ARE found innocent of the initial charge that led to the arrest in the first place, if you catch a resisting charge in the process of being arrested, it's not a given that it will go away. It's a separate charge and has a life of its own.

 

[WestKentucky]

What we know is that his charge for forcibly resisting arrest was not dropped. He'll still have to address that charge either with a trial or with some kind of a plea. It will cost him legal fees and time and perhaps a fine and prison time.

The point is that even if you are right and it turns out you weren't breaking the law, if you resist arrest, that charge won't automatically go away just because the main charge that instigated the arrest does. There's a lesson in there for people who are inclined to learn lessons.

Adding to that the legal definition of resisting arrest varies by jurisdiction. You don’t have to run or take a swing at a cop to catch that charge (and most places both are separate and more serious charges) but it can be as simple as refusing to get out of your vehicle without the officer providing an explanation, or refusing to provide identification when police demand it. A person having a panic attack when confronted with force that doesn’t comply (due to the panic attack) with every word the officer says is highly likely to catch the resisting charge. I’m not advocating for people resisting, so please don’t misunderstand my point here, but the laws are heavily slanted in such a way that anything other than doing exactly as the officer demands is likely to get you a charge, a trip to the booking desk, and a couple grand in fees by the time you bail out, pay court costs, and sign on for fines just to avoid even more expensive court costs and risk of trial where you are represented by a public defender who has a heavy case load and probably is so overworked that they don’t care about you as their client, or you can pay for private representation and write another check. It takes no time flat for a person to go from upstanding citizen to $10,000 fines and probation, for doing what they believe to be legal and reasonable.

All of that said, including massive run-on sentences, to emphasize the point that a person needs to know the laws so that they can follow the laws, because the consequences come fast, are hefty, and even if your right it’s expensive to get away from once the officer writes a report.

 

[JohnKSa]

...the laws are heavily slanted in such a way that anything other than doing exactly as the officer demands is likely to get you a charge, a trip to the booking desk, and a couple grand in fees by the time you bail out, pay court costs, and sign on for fines just to avoid even more expensive court costs and risk of trial where you are represented by a public defender who has a heavy case load and probably is so overworked that they don’t care about you as their client, or you can pay for private representation and write another check. It takes no time flat for a person to go from upstanding citizen to $10,000 fines and probation, for doing what they believe to be legal and reasonable.

That's more of the picture. Failing to comply with a lawful order from LE is against the law and depending on what level of resistance is offered the offense can be enhanced. Arguing with the cops/resisting the cops is not productive. You can't get a trial while you are being arrested or getting a ticket so arguing like you are in a courtroom and citing law or precedent or the constitution is pretty much a waste of time and you're just going to add on charges. Even if you are later found innocent of the original offense that initiated the arrest/stop/citation, the resisting/failing to comply charges will likely still persist.

As I said, there's a lesson to be learned here for those who are inclined to learn lessons.

 

[Barmcd]

What we know is that his charge for forcibly resisting arrest was not dropped. He'll still have to address that charge either with a trial or with some kind of a plea. It will cost him legal fees and time and perhaps a fine and prison time.

The point is that even if you are right and it turns out you weren't breaking the law, if you resist arrest, that charge won't automatically go away just because the main charge that instigated the arrest does. There's a lesson in there for people who are inclined to learn lessons.

You are never going to win an argument with a LE on the side of the road - or at the post office.

 

[Double_J]

Resisting Arrest is a very dangerous "catch all" charge that can, has, and will be used and abused. This is similar to Disorderly Conduct / Disturbing the Peace. You WILL NOT win on the side of the road, and most likely will not win in the courtroom.

I have a friend who got hit with resisting arrest and beat the charges, but it cost him a fair amount of time and some money. The cop who made the arrest used a creative interpretation of the law and the fact my friend has a serious anxiety disorder and hearing loss. The judge took that into account and the fact the cop got an attitude on the stand when he found my friend not guilty. My friend was awarded court costs after the trial but that is not always the case.

 

[Styx]

Resisting Arrest is a very dangerous "catch all" charge that can, has, and will be used and abused. This is similar to Disorderly Conduct / Disturbing the Peace. You WILL NOT win on the side of the road, and most likely will not win in the courtroom.

I have a friend who got hit with resisting arrest and beat the charges, but it cost him a fair amount of time and some money. The cop who made the arrest used a creative interpretation of the law and the fact my friend has a serious anxiety disorder and hearing loss. The judge took that into account and the fact the cop got an attitude on the stand when he found my friend not guilty. My friend was awarded court costs after the trial but that is not always the case.

Yes, it's simular, in many cases, to the how law enforcement claims they smell weed if they want to search your vehicle without a warrent. Resisting arrest is used by law enforcement in many cases as an easy way to put someone in jail that ticked them off. I've seen countless live videos of law enforcement putting cuffs on will suspects while yelling for them to "stop resisting" when they clearly weren't resisting. Then still preceeds to charge and arrest them for resisting even in cases were they have the wrong person. If they don't like how you look, the fact that you refused to answer questions, or they simply don't like the fact that you carry a gun, if they want to arrest you, they'll say you resisted arrest.

 

[Styx]

You are never going to win an argument with a LE on the side of the road - or at the post office.

Your and @JohnKSa points are true.... On the other side of the coin, many staunch Conservatives who know their rights and the law gun would rather fight the charge in court than to be bullied when they know their rights are clearly being violated. They aren't under any illusion they fushing and being difficult will make things swing their way. They know officers might start trying to tack on extras charges, whether appropriate or not, but they do not care.

 

[JohnKSa]

I've seen countless live videos of law enforcement putting cuffs on will suspects while yelling for them to "stop resisting" when they clearly weren't resisting.

It is very convenient, is it not, that there is now publicly available video evidence to support the suspect's claims when they are right, or LE's claims if not.

On the other side of the coin, many staunch Conservatives who know their rights and the law gun would rather fight the charge in court than to be bullied when they know their rights are clearly being violated.

YES! THAT is exactly the lesson. Fight the charge IN COURT. Trying to fight at the scene is a terrible idea. Even if you are right you will still be left with the resisting charge to deal with.

 

[JEBruns]

You are never going to win an argument with a LE on the side of the road - or at the post office.

Not always true. I've seen folks win arguments with LE's in minor traffic offenses. I get your point though.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The arresting officer may not agree with a law himself, so it is doubly wrong to resist arrest over a law you and the officer may both feel is unconstitutional.