Post office gun ban faces constitutional challenge

(Center Square) – A federal ban on carrying guns in post offices is in question, as a legal filing now calls into question whether the ban violates the Constitution.

Two men, Gavin Pate and George Mandry, filed suit against the Justice Department over the ban on carrying and storing guns in federal post offices.

Pate is an Anglican priest from Arlington, Texas, who argues he should be able to keep his gun on him for personal protection. Pate and Mandry filed a complaint this week.

“Plaintiff Pate carries and intends to continue to carry his personal handgun during his daily activities, which include running errands,” the complaint states. “He is particularly concerned about the increase in crime in his region. Plaintiff Pate visits his local United States Post Office in Tarrant County, Texas once or twice a month. He disarms before entering for fear of being arrested and prosecuted.

“Because Plaintiff Pate does not like to disarm and lose the ability to defend himself, he primarily uses a local private post office. If he were not required to disarm, plaintiff Pate would visit his local United States Post Office once or twice a week.

Mandry is a U.S. Navy veteran who previously held security clearances but is not authorized to carry a weapon on post office premises, according to the complaint.

“Plaintiff Mandry’s customers sometimes pay him in cash or through money orders that he cashes at the post office,” the complaint states. “Because he often carries large amounts of cash, Plaintiff Mandry does not like having to disarm when entering the United States Post Office. Plaintiff Mandry would visit his local United States Post Office once a week if he were not forced to disarm and lose the ability to defend himself.

Under U.S. law, 18 USC § 930(a), prohibits the carrying of weapons in “federal installations,” including the post office, and a violation can result in a fine or imprisonment. Likewise, 39 CFR § 232.1(l) also explicitly prohibits the carrying of firearms in a post office, as the complaint points out.

Opponents argue that there is historical precedent for banning the carrying of firearms in Congress, courthouses and polling places, where the federal government explicitly provides security and protection. However, they argue that the federal government does not provide protection for citizens in post offices and therefore should not be able to disarm them, especially since there is no historical precedent for disarming them. ban on firearms in post offices.

“Accordingly, the Middle District of Florida recently held that 18 USC § 930(a) was unconstitutional as it applied to a postal worker charged with possessing a firearm in a post office of the United States,” the complaint states.

In particular, the decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022 helped pave the way for this argument. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York's overly strict requirements for carrying a concealed weapon violated Americans' right to self-defense.

The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation are helping lead the legal challenge.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess and carry firearms outside of one's home for lawful purposes, including in post offices,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “But unlike the USPS, we can promise that Attorney General Garland will get this message on time.”