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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    now must allow armed nut jobs inside

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

    “Well shit Jethro. Sign says it right there. ‘No nutty gunners allowed.’ Let’s go put our shit back in the truck. 'Parently the libs won’t ‘allow’ us to shoot the place up. Dang it!”

    People like you are why our politicians waste political capital on bullshit laws instead of working towards real solutions. You actually believe carry bans are effective? Ignorant at best, a childish conception of human behavior, and that’s me being charitable.

    “Well, by golly I don’t like it! A ban should do nicely! Put those bad people in their place for once!”

    Yeah. Worked for alcohol, abortion and drugs, didn’t it?

    the place that mass shootings in the US began

    Fuck are you on about? I know, bag on Florida, score internet points, feel righteous. Getting that dopamine hit? Feeling smart?

    Know why you hear so much crazy shit about Florida?

    We got 21.7 million people here, third most populous state in the union. (A million is “a lot” for those of you lacking math.) Yeah, we gonna have some fruits and nuts.

    We got “sunshine laws”, a liberal idea, one I adore, that allows free reporting of crime and much more.

    Florida began its tradition of openness back in 1909 with the passage of Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes or the “Public Records Law.” This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Florida Legislature.

    Perhaps we should rescind that? Take the wind out of the sails for people like you?

    We got a nut case governor, who is certainly going to lose his next election. LOL, we can’t do worse.

    Where you from? Bet money I can bag on your state as hard or harder.

    • MagicShel
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

      • bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year 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
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

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

    • BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot to unpack here but I’ll just focus on this;

      the place that mass shootings in the US began

      The term “going postal” is what they’re referring to.

        • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Freedom is scary

          I’m pretty free and never have to fear that the jackass in front of me on the highway will pull a gun if I look at him wrong. Crazy how a gun isn’t necessary for freedom.

            • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No you see you have it backwards. I’m not afraid of psychos with guns because I live in a country with somewhat sane firearm laws.

              The guy who pulled the gun on me in Boston lived in fear though.

              Weird how that works.

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sounds like you should stay where ever you are from. You prefer to trade freedom for perceived safety.

                I would advise not coming to America again. Freedom can be scary.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is that the experiment you imagine --implementing common-sense gun-reform-- has been run hundreds of times in other countries and the result was not, as you hypothesize, that suddenly they were overrun by bad guys with guns who don’t care about gun laws, but rather was that they saw precipitous declines in gun violence and gun-related deaths.

      Basically, your hypothesis, which you and others take for granted as evidently true, is objectively incorrect, and has been shown to be so many times. What does a rational actor do when their hypothesis is shown to be incorrect? Do they continue to defend it? Help me make sense of your thinking, because what it looks like to me is a complete refusal to confront and accept reality.