Better in their words…

A federal judge in Florida ruled on Jan. 12 that the U.S. government’s decision to arrest a man for possessing a firearm in a post office violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle for the Middle District of Florida cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen case, in which the high court said that the Second Amendment protects a U.S. citizen’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense purposes.

That ruling also set up a new test for judging firearms laws, stating that such legal restrictions should be consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

“But the Supreme Court has been clear: the government must point to historical principles that would permit it to prohibit firearms possession in post offices,” Judge Mizelle wrote.

“The United States fails to meet that burden. Thus, I dismiss the [Section] 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

The lawsuit stems from Mr. Ayala’s arrest in 2022, when he was a semi-truck driver for the U.S. Postal Service. From time to time, Mr. Ayala carried his firearms into the post office when retrieving his truck from work “for extra protection” while walking to and from the employee parking lot, the order stated.

On Sept. 14, 2022, two agents from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General attempted to detain him as he walked into the post office. Mr. Ayala ran but was eventually apprehended by the local police. A grand jury indicted him for violating Section 930(a) and forcibly resisting arrest.

Judge Mizelle’s order only resolves Mr. Ayala’s Section 930(a) claims.

“Post offices have existed since the founding, as have threats to the safety of postal workers and the public entering those locations. Yet the historical record yields no ‘distinctly similar historical regulation addressing’ those safety problems by regulating firearms in post offices,” the order said.

However, the government concedes that there is “no evidence of firearms being prohibited at post offices, specifically, or of postal workers being prohibited from carrying them, at the time of the founding.”

The judge noted that since the creation of the post office, mail carriers “have faced risk of violence.” In the 19th century, passengers in stagecoaches, which carried mail at the time, risked injury or death from robbers.

In the latter half of the 19th century, when locomotives became the dominant method of transporting mail, bandits threatened postal workers on board the coaches.

“Yet the federal government never sought to ban firearms to protect employees or secure mail delivery. In fact, when mail train robberies became a growing threat in the early twentieth century, the Postmaster General armed railway mail clerks with ‘government-issued pistols’ from World War I.”

The California law was enacted after the 2022 Bruen SCOTUS ruling. The law, SB 2, sought to ban people from carrying firearms in most public places, insisting that such an act was unconstitutional.

However, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled in December that the gun law would “unconstitutionally deprive” people with carry permits as they would then not have the “constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.”

The 9th Circuit appeals court allowed this ruling on Jan. 6, blocking the California law from taking effect.

Measure 114 requires Oregon citizens to undergo an FBI background check and take part in a police-sponsored firearms class to buy guns.