Not from our district but notable. Judge Mizelle from the Middle District of Florida dismissed an indictment charging a defendant for possessing a firearm in a federal facility (in this case, a post office). The defendant--who was a US Postal Service employee--argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because it violated his Second Amendment rights.
Mizelle agreed. She reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in N .Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’ n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) required there to be "historical support for [the statute]’s application to" the defendant. She found none.
"Post offices have existed since the founding, as have threats to the safety of postal workers and the public entering those locations. Yet the historical record yields no 'distinctly similar historical regulation addressing' those safety problems by regulating firearms in post offices."
Will be interesting to see how courts will apply Bruen in other contexts. In the meantime, if you want to know more about the US Postal Service, the opinion provides a little history lesson. Opinion below.
Ayala by John Byrne on Scribd
7 comments:
One would hope that the Bruen test is living on borrowed time, but with this Court not likely.
The commander in chief of the army and militias is not allowed to regulate it according to these clowns. Or the Bruen test is demonstrably inadequate.
Most military installations have similar restrictions -- you will find weapons controlled in the armory and in possession of installation security. This is by order of installation command, but derives from authority vested to her or him by POTUS. This is certainly a regulation that is of recent (say the last 100 years) vintage, and not from our founding era (what with the aversion to standing armies in the first place).
It will be the height of irony (and hypocrisy) when this ancestor-worship approach to second amendment jurisprudence strikes down personal weapon prohibitions from the otherwise authorized installation command because of the second amendment whose terms signify the intent for the well-regulated militia as its animating purpose.
Now the militia will not be well-regulated (at least in the estimation of those who we put in charge of it, namely the commanders) but ill-regulated. All in service -- supposedly -- of the constitution, but really simply enshrining a poor reading of one clause at the expense of various others and the public.
As a side note, not surprised to see the lack of discussion of the relevance of the term "postal" and its evolving connotation. Real world consequences are for the tens of thousands we continue to sacrifice on the alter of ideology.
That's not what "well-regulated" meant when the Second Amendment was ratified. Your suggestion that the Second Amendment confers no rights at all and vests the Commander in Chief with plenary authority to set the rules regarding firearm possession didn't even fly with the Bruen dissenters.
Nice strawman that it confers no rights at all. And your claim that well-regulated didn't mean regulated under the discretion of those tasked with its charge (while historically incorrect) only proves the point.
Rather than defer to the needs of the organizational commander to determine what the needs of the installation are, we are turning to pencil neck pseudo-intellectual fed soc types who never did anything that wasn't for personal enrichment to tell us what is well-regulated rather than the commander tasked with installation security. Ironic and hypocritic under the guise of doing so to preserve an amendment that turns on the need for a well-regulated militia.
It is simple - if we are bound to ancestor-worship and the current conception of the 2nd Amendment and the need for it to pass the Bruen test, we both agree that installation commanders cannot degrade the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and enforce the restrictions in place restricting the possession of personal firearms on their installations. No such restrictions were in place at founding. Who cares what the installation commander thinks. If such thoughts weren't had by our ancestors at West Point in 1824, the commandant is no longer able to enforce them in 2024.
Folks. Calm down. There is no way the court does not allow restrictions on federal property. Please. You think they want janitors and court staff coming into scotus armed with their personal defense weapons? They are fine with our schools and workplaces, but not theirs. Never underestimate the power of self preservation.
The author is a former Clarence Thomas and Bill Pryor law clerk. 'Nuff said.
Your welcome.
Post a Comment