A federal court has delivered a major win for gun rights and a devastating blow to anti-gun radicals.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional, Bearing Arms reported.
Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered the opinion in Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et al. v. Bondi on Tuesday of this week.
The case was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and two citizens.
O’Connor found that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.”
The complaint, originally submitted in June 2024, challenged the law on the grounds that the government had no historical basis for the restriction.
The court agreed, explaining that the government must prove any firearm restriction is “sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue.’”
This ruling follows the Department of Justice dropping an appeal in a similar case out of Florida.
There, a judge found that the government failed to meet its burden to justify a firearms ban on post office property.
Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said millions visit post offices daily and should not be forced to choose between basic services and their rights.
Alan Gottlieb, who started the Second Amendment Foundation, added that there is “no historical analogue” for a postal firearms ban.
The Firearms Policy Coalition noted Judge O’Connor’s clear explanation that the founders themselves never banned firearms in post offices.
Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition stressed that governments cannot “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”
He declared the ruling ends threats of prosecution for “peaceable people” simply mailing a package or buying stamps.
The truth is simple: gun-free zones do not stop killers.
A sign that says “no firearms allowed” might as well say “potential victims here.”
The only reasonable exceptions might be places with armed security or controlled checkpoints at events such as political rallies, where attendance is voluntary and violence can be likely.
Criminals bent on harming others will not obey signs, as they’ve already, in most cases, decided to commit murder.
Law-abiding citizens are the ones disarmed, and thus left defenseless, by such provisions.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Read the full article here