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.

  • @MagicShel
    link
    225 months ago

    What do you imagine was blocking such people from carrying in the first place? A sign?

    It’s this simple: if it’s legal to carry a gun somewhere then you have no idea which armed people are responsible, sane gun owners; if it’s illegal to carry a gun somewhere, then anyone with a gun is therefore not a sane, responsible gun owner, which is really damn good to know before they are pointing the gun at someone.

    No it doesn’t prevent crazy people with guns, but it let’s you know that anyone with a gun is a threat and measures should be taken immediately.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      15 months ago

      Most of the time you just have no idea which people are armed, concealed carry is popular. Most criminals also carry concealed rather than open, obviously. Sure, if you gave all post office employees X-Ray Spex so they could see the concealed weapons carried by these criminals, your logic would be sound. Unfortunately X-Ray Spex is a band, not a functional product for seeing through clothing, we still need the TSA machines for that.

      • @MagicShel
        link
        15 months ago

        Right, it’s not 100% effective for sure, but it’s better than nothing. Look, if someone perfectly conceals their weapon it’s the same thing as if it’s legal. No one had any chance to react between them going for their weapon and then getting a shot off.

        But if, with all the adrenaline in their system because of what they are planning, they slip up, that’s where the difference is between legal and illegal concealed carry. If it’s legal I don’t know if they are about to commit murder or not, but when it’s illegal then I know they have bad intentions from the moment I see it.

        I could go into much more depth here, but I think this is really the gist of my point. I’m not anti-gun, by the way, or trying to achieve 100% safety from guns. But I do feel like a post office isn’t somewhere a gun needs to be.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          if someone perfectly conceals their weapon it’s the same thing as if it’s legal.

          Generally, and this happens often and nobody knows, but what if say a mass shooter shows up? Then the legality of carrying starts to matter, he is “free” to attack (free in that he knows it is a suicide so he is free from care regarding legal reprocussions), I on the other hand could face legal consequence for defending.

          But if, with all the adrenaline in their system because of what they are planning

          Damn dude what are post offices like in your area? Mine don’t induce production of adrenaline, it’s mostly just standing in line.

          that’s where the difference is between legal and illegal concealed carry.

          Well no, that’d be a permit in most states that defines the difference b/t legal and illegal carry.

          If it’s legal I don’t know if they are about to commit murder or not, but when it’s illegal then I know they have bad intentions from the moment I see it.

          No, you can’t see the permit at all, and you can’t see a concealed gun. You won’t know if they have either.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -55 months ago

      By this logic concealed carry would be acceptable and if someone shows you their gun they are a threat. Which is always illegal already.

      • @MagicShel
        link
        2
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Not by any logic I know but let’s hear it.