353
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.

The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 6 points 9 months ago

So anyone surprised by this ruling must believe that folks, licensed and legally carrying, are disarming and leaving their shit in the car to go into specific buildings. That's stupid. All that does is leave a gun one broken window away from someone already committing crimes who in the excitement of finding a weapon might suddenly graduate to doing much worse crimes. Keeping your piece on your person, holstered and concealed is the only responsible approach if you are going to carry.

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

Um, I don't take my gun in. I remove the magazine, empty the chamber, remove the slide and carry the slide in one pocket and the magazine in another. The lower, the part legally defined as a gun, is locked in the car and useless without the other parts. Never had anyone break into my car while at a post office. Gotta imagine that the rate break-ins at post offices is lower than the average for any given area.

Part of being a responsible gun owner is not putting yourself at risk of a felony charge for bringing a gun into a federal building. Once you have a felony you don't get to carry any guns anywhere.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

But why? When have you ever been in a post office and felt like you needed a firearm to defend yourself? Or the grocery store? Or any of the other places people are pushing to be able to intimidate people by wearing a firearm that immediately lets people know, "look out for me". I've never been to a place I felt like I needed to be armed, and if I did I would probably stop going there. Living in fear of everyone around you to the point you can't mail a package without your gun probably means you should be seeking some counseling, not a carry permit.

EDIT - Oops extra period.

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Your comment pretends that concealed carry doesn't exist. I'd rework that section so you don't look like you missed an obvious counterpoint. While you are at it I'd avoid pretending that you know the motivation of someone carrying. If a person carries for a reason other than what you said it makes it very easy to discard your whole position and because of the way you phrased it not one person you are trying to reach will even begin to agree with your description of their motivation even if that is actually the reason they carry.

Must be nice to just decide not to go places. Not everyone has that luxury.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 4 points 9 months ago

A lot of people who wear them on holsters could just forget, and it's unreasonable to punish people for something they have the right to carry on their person anyway.

I'm actually kind of with the right wing on this one. It is a stupid rule.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Having carried for years. You don't forget. But I would still support a misdemeanor or civil fine charge for a gun owner who was immediately repentant about it when the police showed up.

[-] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 2 points 9 months ago

Intimidation? Maybe read what you are going to respond to. Who is being intimidated by a fully concealed firearm? And what I would give to be as blissfully unaware of my surroundings as you to believe that I could never be endangered by man or beast. You live in a dream. The world is dangerous.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 9 months ago

When is the last time a man or beast attacked you? I mean that in all seriousness, I'm honestly curious with a reaction like that to someone that doesn't feel safe knowing everyone around them is just waiting to be some kind of Jason Bourne.

[-] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 3 points 9 months ago

Last time. Beast: about 4 months ago. I live in a rural area plagued with feral hogs. I have been charged by them on multiple occasions. Shots get fired.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 9 months ago

Ok fair enough, that I can agree with. I still don't know why anyone would need to be armed in the Post Office though.

[-] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 3 points 9 months ago

Mostly just to not leave it in the car. Even a locked car really isn't that secure. On your person is the most secure location. I've had a window broken out and the radio stolen when I went to the mall. I've also been harassed at gas stations, and once was threatened with a knife for my keys. I did draw my pistol on him. He ran, it was over. I'm glad I had it on me. I hate that a firearm has just become part of my clothes. It's not fun. I'm not trying to be a hero. I damn sure wouldn't get it out in anger. If I shoot someone I will be going to jail, because that's standard procedure. Even if I'm determined to be in the right, it will probably take months to retrieve my firearm. The whole thing is a huge pain in the ass at best.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 9 months ago

You sound like a very reasonable gun owner to me, sorry for the trouble. Just hope you can understand that from my point of view I know nothing about the other person with a gun. It could be the guy that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but sees himself as Dirty Harry just itching to pull his piece out and end a "lesser life". Who knows when he is firing off rounds like it's a movie who he might actually hit. That type of scenario I think is most people's worst fear when they see rulings like this.

If people had to take some kind of renewing mental health assessment, along with some kind of "I actually know how this thing works" assessment every couple of years I think that would also help ease minds. That being said, I think things like an AR-15 should be something that stays at a range (envision some kind of weapon holding/transfer program for moving them between ranges and/or from the dealer) as it has no practical real world application except death (but I'm sure they are fun to shoot).

[-] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 2 points 9 months ago

You didn't bother me any. Lots of people out there behaving foolish. Georgia, I'm afraid, is an open carry state. Those are the ones I don't trust. Their holsters are always ill fitting, barely attached to thier owners. They never seem to be paying any kind of attention to their surroundings, but they all wear the same oddly forced looking scowl. And it's always some absolute canon of a pistol, too. And this is at, like, Walmart on Sunday. Those guys are trying to live an action movie. ARs get a bad rap, but I'm sure you aren't interested in my defense of the platform. It's just a rifle though. Not a particularly high powered one either.

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 9 months ago

Bad risk assessment. Most Americans are deeply confused about the things that are likely to kill them vs the things they actively worry about. Maybe that's not you, but statistically it almost certainly is.

Unless you are a young man in a concentrated poverty neighborhood, your chances of encountering deadly interpersonal violence are vanishingly small. You're far more likely to be killed by heart disease due to an unhealthy lifestyle, yet the vast majority (not all) of gun-owners pay little or no attention to that aspect of their personal well-being.

The need some people feel to carry a gun isn't rooted in accurate risk assessment and instead is about a desire to feel empowered or because like my old man --a Vietnam combat vet-- they have a blown-out fight or flight response so that everything looks like a threat even when it's not. (This is why so many Vietnam vets --again, like my old man-- ended up living off in the woods by themselves; that way they could be in control of their environment at all times which is also why they always carried firearms.)

But ultimately the real problem is that many people aren't honest with themselves about why they are so wedded to carrying.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I envy you. I have lived places where being armed was the responsible move. I still didn't carry everywhere or every day though. There are bad places, even in the US.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 points 9 months ago

I just don't see how throwing gas on the fire makes it less out of control. Are you really prepared to shoot someone? Wouldn't a better solution be for sane gun laws that don't put them everywhere, and doesn't make it so you have to feel in danger everywhere you go? I just don't see how our constant bowing to gun lobbing to make sure that the streets are constantly full of guns is helping anyone. And it just can't be a coincidence that the US is the country with the biggest problem, and also the one where we are constantly trying to arm everyone, everywhere.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

For me? Yes. But I'm also a combat veteran. I also would love to live in that world where we didn't get fucked over by gun companies. And I'm not saying people should carry everywhere. Some gun owners really are just scared alpha males who want a security blanket. But we live in the world we live in and until it changes we do what we have to if we don't live in a safe area.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

So anyone surprised by this ruling

I am alarmed and concerned by this ruling, but not really surprised.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Take it apart. They can get the bolt slide for breaking the window. Barrel, grip/lower, and spring go in your pockets. I've never had a place turn me away after doing that. Government buildings though should have lockers. That's the most responsible way of handling it.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

What? A reasonable person with a gun?!? That's got to be enough to get you kicked out of the NRA for life.

Most gun owners forget the "well regulated" part of their favorite amendment. Every town in the Old West bigger than a general store had a prohibition on carrying guns in town. Concealed weapon? Straight to jail. It's evidence that you were going to kill or main someone.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah well I started in the Army, without any NRA propaganda as a kid. If anything the opposite since Columbine happened while I was a kid.

[-] PrettyLights@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The lower/receiver is the part that is legally a firearm.

I've never had a place turn me away after doing that

You carry a lower into gun-free zones and they're cool with it? That's the same legally as carrying the whole gun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_(firearms)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Technically yes. In reality you just don't bring a gun if you know your going to a gun free zone. This in regards to private businesses.

[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

But then you're back to "It's literally fascism if I'm not allowed to always have the ability to impulsively clear a room for even 5 seconds."

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Well, according to the NRA anyway.

this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
353 points (100.0% liked)

News

23207 readers
3563 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS