March 21, 2016
SCOTUS Says Government Can Infringe Bill of Rights on Government Property
Timothy Birdnow
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case involving Federal regulations (read laws) banning firearms in post offices and other federal facilities.
According to ABC News:
" The Supreme Court won’t hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.
The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.
The Obama administration argued that the Second Amendment does not restrict laws forbidding guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
End excerpt.
Private property owners have the right to ban firearms, but does the government? Government property is not really private, after all, as it has been bought and paid for by the taxpayers, and restricting rights of any sort on ppublic land requires extraordinary justification. Will this lead to restrictions elsewhere? What about on interstate highways? Can the Feds ban people from legally carrying firearms in their cars on the roads? If a Constitutionally protected right may be enfringed on a post office parking lot what other rights may be infringed? Can you ban, say, Catholics from setting foot inside a post office? Can you stop someone from making anti-transgendered statements to another patron? Ban copies of The American Spectator from being brought on the parking lot? An infringement is an infringement. The Administration has to have a solid reason for it. Yes, a national security facility may infringe such rights, but not the USPS.
Oh, and what happens when one of the postal workers "goes postal"? THEY aren't going to refrain from entering with a firearm, and now everyone has been disarmed thanks to a stupid policy that the Obama Administration has no right to impose in the first place.
This illustrates the importance of the next President. Would this case have been rejected were Scalia still alive?
Maybe. But maybe not. The Constitution is very clear on this matter "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be enfringed". Petty bureacrats do not have the authority to ban people from legally carrying firearms just because they own the parking lot.
Maybe the Post Office should worry more about delivering mail and less about what is in the possession of their customers.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case involving Federal regulations (read laws) banning firearms in post offices and other federal facilities.
According to ABC News:
" The Supreme Court won’t hear a dispute over a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property and adjacent parking lots.
The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not extend to government buildings or the parking areas that serve them.
The case involved Colorado resident Tab Bonidy, who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun. He sought a court order striking down the regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.
The Obama administration argued that the Second Amendment does not restrict laws forbidding guns in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
End excerpt.
Private property owners have the right to ban firearms, but does the government? Government property is not really private, after all, as it has been bought and paid for by the taxpayers, and restricting rights of any sort on ppublic land requires extraordinary justification. Will this lead to restrictions elsewhere? What about on interstate highways? Can the Feds ban people from legally carrying firearms in their cars on the roads? If a Constitutionally protected right may be enfringed on a post office parking lot what other rights may be infringed? Can you ban, say, Catholics from setting foot inside a post office? Can you stop someone from making anti-transgendered statements to another patron? Ban copies of The American Spectator from being brought on the parking lot? An infringement is an infringement. The Administration has to have a solid reason for it. Yes, a national security facility may infringe such rights, but not the USPS.
Oh, and what happens when one of the postal workers "goes postal"? THEY aren't going to refrain from entering with a firearm, and now everyone has been disarmed thanks to a stupid policy that the Obama Administration has no right to impose in the first place.
This illustrates the importance of the next President. Would this case have been rejected were Scalia still alive?
Maybe. But maybe not. The Constitution is very clear on this matter "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be enfringed". Petty bureacrats do not have the authority to ban people from legally carrying firearms just because they own the parking lot.
Maybe the Post Office should worry more about delivering mail and less about what is in the possession of their customers.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:50 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0139, elapsed 0.2747 seconds.
36 queries taking 0.2695 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
36 queries taking 0.2695 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
