Denver, CO -(AmmoLand.com)- In yet another decision that thumbs it’s nose at the Supreme Court’s landmark D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago rulings, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held today that the Second Amendment does not protect gun rights outside of one’s home.
The case, Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, challenged 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which prohibits the storage and carriage of firearms on USPS property. The district court decision found that the law was unconstitutional as applied to its prohibition on guns in parking lots, but not the ban on carry inside government buildings.
Circuit Judge David M. Ebel–another Ronald Reagan appointee to decide against gun rights–was joined by Circuit Judge Gregory A. Phillips (appointed by Barack Obama) in the decision:
We….conclude that the regulation is constitutional as to all USPS property at issue in this case, including the Avon Post Office parking lot, because the Second Amendment right to bear arms has not been extended to “government buildings.” Government buildings, in this context, includes the government owned parking lot connected to the U.S. Post Office. Alternatively, even if we were to conclude that the parking lot did not qualify as a “government building,” we would uphold this regulation as constitutional as applied to the parking lot under independent intermediate scrutiny.
Ignoring McDonald’s command that the Second Amendment does not protect “second-class” rights, the Tenth Circuit held that “the risk inherent in firearms and other weapons distinguishes the Second Amendment right from other fundamental rights that have been held to be evaluated under a strict scrutiny test, such as the right to marry and the right to be free from viewpoint discrimination, which can be exercised without creating a direct risk to others.”
But the Supreme Court expressly rejected that argument in 2010 when it struck down the City of Chicago’s handgun ban. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said:
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates `substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 522, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)(reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”);Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 517, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “in some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”);Mapp, 367 U.S., at 659, 81 S.Ct. 1684.
According to the Tenth Circuit, however, “even assuming a right to bear firearms outside the home, and even if, contrary to our ruling above, the parking lot is not itself considered part of a ‘government building,’ we conclude that any such right Bonidy might possess was not violated here by 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) precluding him from possessing a firearm in the postal parking lot.”
Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich (appointed by George W. Bush) dissented in part, saying:
First, I would explicitly hold in this case that the Second Amendment applies outside the home instead of assuming but not deciding it does, as the majority concludes….Second, I would affirm the district court’s invalidation of the regulation as applied in the parking lot.
However, he also noted that “the list and the facts of this case ultimately lead me to concur in the judgment regarding the post office building.”
On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court yet again denied review to a federal gun rights lawsuit where a lower court upheld a gun control law that appeared to directly conflict with the Heller decision. In an uncommon published dissent from the Court’s decision to not take up the case, Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion in McDonald, said:
“We warned in Heller that a constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
Thomas was joined in his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored Heller.
BOTTOM LINE: It appears that, until the nation’s highest court decides to protect the expressly enumerated Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as strongly as it does non-enumerated rights like gay marriage and abortion, law-abiding American gun owners are simply left to watch lower courts unravel the Constitution and our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms in decisions like Bonidy. The full Bonidy v. USPS decision can be read here.
Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/06/breaking-another-federal-circuit-court-unravels-second-amendment-gun-rights/#ixzz3eUtmDpgj
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
“According to the Tenth Circuit, however, “even assuming a right to bear firearms outside the home,…”
ASSUMING A RIGHT TO BEAR FIREARMS???
There IS no ‘assumption’ involved, @SSHOLES!!!
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! PERIOD!!!!!
Screw the tenth circuit court.
I don’t think anyone else is listening to them anymore, either.
From a historical perspective it becomes almost comical to have the government which is supposed to be deterred by an armed population, (which is the purpose of the 2nd according to the documents and letters of the founders), getting to decide what part of the population is armed and requiring government permission to buy a gun.
He is okay, and he is okay, no not him we don’t want to be deterred by him.
Nor do we want to be deterred by anyone who does this, or that, or has demonstrated a willingness to act in this or that manner.
It is a mockery of the intent of the 2nd.
And only can be excused in modern times because people don’t actually believe in the real purpose of the 2nd anymore, and instead guns are owned purely for self defense from common criminals, animals, use in pest control and recreational activites. Which is understandable, but not why we actually have the 2nd Amendment that so many people like to mention.
Because if people really acknowledged legally or intellectually that something was owned to deter something else, letting what is supposed to be detered get to decide who owns that which will deter it is contrary to logic. Even if they believe that the purpose of the 2nd is outdated, it seems unConstitutional to allow such a situation without changing the 2nd Amendment which the founders put there with that understanding of its purpose.
Until the Tenth Circuit Court comes and secures my Home , Family, and all that I own and love , I’ll be doing it my way without them
Come to think of it , I dont need them, so they can stand the hell down and realize they never gave me this right , so they have no abilities against or even for it..
they are, and their opinions are completely irrelevant to any of my rights
The 2nd Article doesn’t say a damn thing about the Right to bear arms only applies in some places but not others outside the home nor does it say that only government security and policing agencies in government buildings can carry weapons nor does it even say that we can’t carry guns in government buildings.
It says, “The Right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”. Enough talk and enough infringing. If you don’t like it, go live in another country with Commie values. Try North Korea.
We the People own the government buildings. We paid for them with our tax dollars that you stole from us and We the People have the Right to bear arms. So take your Commie rhetoric and shove it up your ass!