5 thoughts on “Challenge to Post Office Ban Moving Forward”

  1. I wouldn’t be so sure. Certainly, this one will not end until the SCOTUS renders some sort of judgment (and, deciding to not hear the case is, indeed, “some sort of judgment”), but denial of what has been established as an enumerated right in both Heller and McDonald carries with it a great deal of baggage, and the incentive to go to the next level, politically.

  2. I am not too worried about this one. I think the PO has a poor argument since the one case they rely upon for the “sensitive nature” argument involved an employee terminated for having a weapon in his car, not a patron. Moreover, since they are “quasi-governmental”, the PO will have a hard timing maintaining they are independent of any branch of gov’t but at the same time subject to the protections of federal law as a “governmental” building.

  3. The dicta to which you refer does not in any way make all laws existing at the time of Heller suddenly constitutional. The dicta merely notes that the only question before the Court was the DC handgun ban, so any other laws were not affected by the Heller decision. If the dicta were in any way binding, McDonald v. Chicago would have been decided quite differently.

    When an issue is not under review, that issue is not addressed by the decision. No federal law regarding use of guns was under review in Heller, only the DC ban. Scalia could also have written that all existing laws regarding the licensing of automobiles, the federal inspection of ice cream manufacturing, and military detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo were unaffected by Heller, and been equally correct.

  4. The ban is a violation of the civil rights of the federal employees. There is no magic force field keeping insane violent people out of the post office (or out of the countless federal buildings without guards in the DC/VA area, or out of the parking lots of the buildings with guards).

Comments are closed.