I dig all these bullshit restrictions getting uplifted. It defies logic and reason how firearms could be banned in post offices, yet you can legally bring in one to ship that you're still clearly in possession of. A little piece of absolute fucking stupidity removed.
- Thread starter redneckbmxer24
- Start date
I'm pretty sure OP is referencing:
The short version:
Ayala worked as a truck driver for the USPS. He routinely carried a handgun in a fanny pack. When USPS OIG attempted to arrest him, he fled. He was later arrested by local PD and charged with federal counts of knowingly possessing a handgun in/on a federal building and for resisting arrest.
Ayala argued that the ban on carrying on USPS property/in USPS buildings was a 2A violation per Bruen's 'history and tradition' test. He also argued that since the attempted arrest was for an unconstitutional law, that the resisting arrest charge should be thrown out also. The US District Court judge agreed with the first argument, but not the second.
It should be noted that the court making this decision is a trial court that does not set precedent for the whole United States. It is likely this will be appealed by the .gov to an appeals court. Precedent will (may) be set later. If you carry on .fed property, including USPS property based on this court case, you're still in violation of the law (for now).
Sources:
and
UNITED STATES v. AYALA (2024)
United States District Court, M.D. Florida,
UNITED STATES of America, v. Emmanuel AYALA, Defendant
Decided: January 12, 2024
The short version:
Ayala worked as a truck driver for the USPS. He routinely carried a handgun in a fanny pack. When USPS OIG attempted to arrest him, he fled. He was later arrested by local PD and charged with federal counts of knowingly possessing a handgun in/on a federal building and for resisting arrest.
Ayala argued that the ban on carrying on USPS property/in USPS buildings was a 2A violation per Bruen's 'history and tradition' test. He also argued that since the attempted arrest was for an unconstitutional law, that the resisting arrest charge should be thrown out also. The US District Court judge agreed with the first argument, but not the second.
It should be noted that the court making this decision is a trial court that does not set precedent for the whole United States. It is likely this will be appealed by the .gov to an appeals court. Precedent will (may) be set later. If you carry on .fed property, including USPS property based on this court case, you're still in violation of the law (for now).
Sources:
and
No, it’s not a precedence setting case.
Similar threads
