After the ban on carrying guns into a post office for self defense was ruled unconstitutional just a couple days ago, the United States post office is pushing back. This is gonna get good. Before I jump into the video, I want to thank the sponsor of the video. And that’s the Sonoran Desert Institute. Guys. Sdi. edu slash GNG is where you need to go if you think you would like to work on guns for a living.

You will learn all kinds of things there. They have a ton of different topics, many of which will tickle your fancy. And they’ll have information on how they can help you with financing. Sdi. edu slash g g link is down below. Thanks to SDI for being a sponsor of the channel. Look forward to seeing you all in a couple of days, too. All right, guys, let’s get into this one.

So, in the case of United States versus Ayala, I’ll link the video above. I believe the ruling was on the twelveth of January, 2024. A judge said that the ban on firearms in post offices was unconstitutional. Among the many things the judge quoted was the Bruin decision. She said that for anything to stand, the federal government would have to prove that their federal restriction or their firearms restriction was consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

She said that post offices had been around since the founding and there were no laws all the way back to the 17 hundreds banning guns from post offices. In fact, she did her homework and said that the first law that was passed banning firearms from federal buildings was, I think, 1964. And the law that banned guns from post offices was 1972. I’m pretty sure those dates are right, but the post office is pushing back, and I want to tell you that I’m going to read you some things after I show you what the post office is saying right from the judge’s decision, and hope that you understand where we’re at.

I told you that it was probably going to be appealed and stuff like that. Well, follow along with me. Here’s what the post office put out yesterday, and this is on their own news source. It says the USPS wants everyone to know its policy on firearms on postal property. Employee safety is a top priority for the organization. Employee safety is a top priority for the postal service, which is why the organization wants to ensure everyone is aware of its long standing policy on firearms on postal property.

A recent Florida district court decision is being misreported, or may be misrepresented as holding that the postal service’s ban on carrying firearms either openly or concealed or storing them on USPS property, that’s the parking lots as well, is unconstitutional. In fact, the case dealt with a different federal statute and does not involve the postal services regulation. Therefore, it does not change the organization’s policy. Employees are reminded that carrying or storing firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons or explosives, either openly or concealed on U.

S. Postal service property, is prohibited and can result in discipline up to and including removal from the postal service, as well as potential prosecution. This prohibition includes storing firearms in vehicles that are parked on postal property. Obvious fed boys are saying, hey, no, not yet. Now, as far as being misrepresented or misreported, actually, the postal service is the one misrepresenting this, because I’ll show you the case of USV Ayala.

Here it is on the screen. Here’s the order. It says, the United States indicted Emmanuel Ayala, a postal worker, for possessing a firearm in a federal facility in violation of 18 USC 930. Ayala argues that statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because the historical record does not support a law banning firearms in post offices. C. New York State Rifle and Pistol association versus Bruin relying on dicta from earlier cases, the United States responds that the Second Amendment allows it to punish the bearing of arms inside any government building.

Well, that would be utter bullshit. But the Supreme Court has been clear. The government must point to historical principles that would permit it to prohibit firearm possession in post offices. United States fails to meet that burden. Thus, I dismiss the 930 a charge because it violates Ayala’s second amendment right to bear arms unconstitutional. Now, if the post office is saying it doesn’t address our policy, well, if that law is unconstitutional, well, your little policy is as well.

Now, it’s important to say that you’ll note the judge said, as applied to Ayala. Okay, so she dismissed that charge as being a violation to his second Amendment right under Bruin. But that doesn’t mean that she made the decision for the entire country. That is something that can be challenged based off of her decision as applied to Ayala. She said it’s unconstitutional. Yes, 100%. And everybody who’s been saying that is correct.

But she did not strike that or enjoin that law from being enforced. That would have to take another challenge to do that. And it could be a very quick challenge. Anybody could bring it, any group could bring it and use this judge’s decision as judicial notice, although the judge wouldn’t have to do that. But I do want you to see this as well. That is in this decision, the Second Amendment challenge.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol association versus Bruin requires the United States to present historical support for 930 A’s application to Ayala, which it fails to do. Post offices have existed since the founding, as have threats to 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, Bruin deans this absence strong evidence of the statute’s unconstitutionality, even if the lack of distinctly similar historical regulation was not a dispositive.

The United States has offered no relevant historical analogues, although not my burden. I conduct a more robust historical inquiry and likewise uncover no tradition of relevantly similar firearm regulations. So that says everything you need to know. All right, it’s unconstitutional. Per Bruin, she did give the federal government until April 14. I think it was to give her more reasons on why the ban should be upheld. So it’s in flux.

She didn’t enjoin it for the country. And based off of many comments I got, I will say this as well. Carrying a gun in a post office or having it in the parking lot is against the law. Always. Well, not always has been since the early 70s, but that is not what Bruin decision says. So this is going to be another loss. They’re just playing the judicial ping pong back and forth, but I want everybody to know that the post office is pushing back.

So don’t walk in there today with an mp5 because they’ll still jam you up and you would be able to challenge it based off of brewing and you would probably win. But it could be two years in the slammer or several hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. The government is going to be scrambling right now to try to convince this judge or the next step because this is the district level.

Next would become the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court if they find it that far. But just wanted y’all to be aware. Appreciate each and every single one of you. Check out SDI this awesome shirt. I’ll have linked down below as well. They have some cool shirts and hats too. I’ll have them down below. Thank you. I appreciate y’all be safe, stay vigilant, and carry a gun to keep you, your friends, your family, your community safe.

Have a great day. Take care. .

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.