U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case

Today attorney Tom Odom of Prince Law Offices, P.C., will file with the U.S. Supreme Court a brief on behalf of Firearms Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”) and Firearms Industry Consulting Group (“FICG”), in support of the request of Tab Bonidy and the National Association for Gun Rights to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Bonidy is a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a permit to carry a firearm who lives in rural Colorado.  Like millions of other Americans, he obtained such a permit so that he might be prepared to defend himself outside of his home.  When the U.S. Postal Service advised Bonidy that he would be subject to prosecution simply for momentarily storing his firearm in the trunk of his vehicle in an unsecured parking lot made available for postal patrons, Bonidy sought a determination that applying the postal regulation to him under such circumstances would violate the Second Amendment.

The area where Bonidy lives is sufficiently rural that there is no home delivery of mail, the lobby of the post office is open to the public at all times so that individuals may retrieve mail from their post office boxes, and the post office does not maintain any regular security employees.  Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit stated that both the lobby and the unsecured parking lot where Bonidy proposed to lock the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle constituted “secure places” beyond the scope of the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

In the belief that Bonidy’s case presents a superior opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to make clear that the Second Amendment is not exclusively limited to self-defense within one’s own home, FICG prepared the brief in support of Bonidy’s petition for certiorari on a pro bono basis.  FOAC joined in the effort and covered the cost of the printing of the briefs.

The decision below was reported as Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015).  The U.S. Supreme Court docket number is 15-746.  Here is a link to the brief filed with the court.

UPDATE: On behalf of the U.S. Postal Service the Solicitor General (“SG”) requested and was granted additional time to file a brief in opposition to U.S. Supreme Court review. While the SG’s position is not surprising, the fact that the SG will file a brief at this stage indicates concern that the case could represent one of the 3% or so requests for review that the Court grants.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Constitutional Law, Firearms Law

14 responses to “U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case

  1. Pingback: U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case | Rifleman III Journal

  2. Pete R.

    I think it’s BS that we should be denied our right to self-defense in ANY publicly funded building. I can KIND OF understand a courthouse because of what goes on there and the types of people who frequent a place like that. But a post-office? When was the last time you read about someone shooting up a post office that WASN’T a postal worker (The term “going postal” didn’t get coined from us Average Joe’s)? I do personally feel differently about private property rights. It’s your property, you decide what happens there; but I also feel that there has to be some accountability for some decisions, i.e. You ban me from carrying, but if someone comes in and shoots the place up, you’re accountable for me not being able to defend myself.

    Like

  3. SWIFT

    Good luck on the appeal. I personally am sick of appointed bureaucrats, interpreting the law, to further a self serving agenda.

    Like

  4. The statute that was posted at most Post offices. I forget the Number always left out the last paragraph. Simply stated the law forbid the carrying firearms on Postal property, except for lawful purposes. The lawful paragraph was always omitted. I worked there for 24 years.

    Like

    • Henry

      The above is true — however, there is a completely separate federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3061(c)(4)(A-B)) granting the Postmaster General full authority to prescribe regulations necessary for the protection of property owned or occupied by the USPS and persons on the property, and there is no such exception in that one. This is the law being litigated here. The defendant is forced to argue that the law itself violated the constitution, which is a much less trivial job.

      Like

    • The above is true — however, there is a completely separate federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3061(c)(4)(A-B)) granting the Postmaster General full authority “to prescribe regulations necessary for the protection of property owned or occupied by the USPS and persons on the property,” and there is no such exception in that one. This is the law being litigated here. The defendant is forced to argue that the law itself violated the constitution, which is a much less trivial job.

      Like

  5. Pingback: U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Hear Another Second Amendment Case

  6. George Losoncy

    I knew about the law, but none of the PO`s I do business at have the no guns policy posted on the front door or window. There have been cases adjudicated where the inside of your locked trunk is considered an extension of your home.

    Like

  7. Pingback: Random Shots for Tuesday, 12 January 2016 | Extropy and Sedition

  8. The Update says that the SG is going to file a brief in opposition but I don’t see that on the docket -> http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles\15-746.htm

    Like

  9. Pingback: SCOTUS Denies Cert in U.S. v. Bonidy Regarding Possession of Firearms on Postal Property | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s