{"id":112427,"date":"2025-10-01T12:13:04","date_gmt":"2025-10-01T17:13:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=112427"},"modified":"2025-10-01T12:13:04","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T17:13:04","slug":"112427","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=112427","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional<\/a>
\nA federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This\u00a0ruling<\/a>\u00a0comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.<\/p>\n

On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O\u2019Connor delivered an opinion on\u00a0Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0FPC<\/a>\u00a0is joined by the\u00a0Second Amendment Foundation<\/a>\u00a0and two citizens \u2014 \u00a0Gavin Pate and George Mandry \u2014 \u00a0in challenging the federal law.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0that the law \u201cis unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs\u2019 (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.\u201d There\u2019s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.<\/p>\n

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. \u201cSo if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a \u2018sensitive place,\u2019 it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a \u2018well-established and representative historical analogue,\u2019\u201d the\u00a0complaint<\/a>\u00a0said.<\/p>\n

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property.\u00a0U.S. v. Ayala<\/em><\/a>\u00a0in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala\u2019s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: \u201cThe United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala\u2019s indictment under \u00a7 930(a).\u201d<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Ayala<\/em>, the Department of Justice\u00a0dismissed<\/a>\u00a0their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle\u2019s order to stand.<\/p>\n

\u201cMillions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,\u201d said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a\u00a0statement<\/a>. \u201cAs we\u2019ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today\u2019s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

The order applies to \u201cordinary post offices,\u201d and explains, \u201cBecause Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a huge win for SAF and its members,\u201d said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. \u201cThere is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that \u201cJudge O\u2019Connor explained, \u2018it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office \u2014 particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden\u2019 to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is \u2018unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms\u2019 inside a post office or on post office property.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can\u2019t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.\u201d He further stated that governments also can\u2019t \u201cinvent new so-called \u2018gun-free zones\u2019 whenever they please.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cFor too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,\u201d Combs said. \u201cThat ends here.\u201d<\/p>\n

The victory in\u00a0FPC v. Bondi<\/em>\u00a0is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof \u2014 because there isn\u2019t one.<\/p>\n

Considering the Department of Justice\u2019s recent withdrawal in the\u00a0Ayala\u00a0<\/em>criminal possession case, it\u2019s not likely they\u2019ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We\u2019ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This\u00a0ruling\u00a0comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O\u2019Connor delivered an opinion on\u00a0Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=112427"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112427\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":112428,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112427\/revisions\/112428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=112427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=112427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=112427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}