SCOTUS turned down an opportunity earlier this week to hear a dispute over whether guns can be forbidden from post offices, upholding a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans guns from post office property, the Associated Press reported.
The Obama administration argued that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not apply in areas the government deems “sensitive,” such as schools, government buildings, and the parking lots of those facilities.
The plaintiff in the case, Colorado concealed carry permit holder Tab Bonidy, sought a court order striking down the post office regulation after learning he would be prosecuted for carrying his gun while picking up mail at his local post office or leaving it in his car.
The appeals court ruled against him and the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, which means Bonidy will face federal charges. The Court’s decision also sets a tough precedent against future cases looking to lift the gun-free zones in potential terror targets like schools and government buildings.
The administration’s case would make more sense if gun incidents were common at post offices. But, as K.I. Jamismon, Esq., over at the U.S. Concealed Carry Association points out, there have been remarkably few incidents at post offices involving permit holders:
The fact that there have not been a number of cases on this point shows that the great number of concealed carry licensees who stop at post offices carry discretely and do not create problems. This is significant. When concealed carry was first proposed, and every improvement since, we were told there would be blood in the streets and citizens being terrified by licensees brandishing guns. These threats are still heard, are always wrong, but are treated as valid commentary by the media. The shortage of post office cases indicates the efforts of concealed carry licensees to carry lawfully and discreetly; yet, it happens.
Concealed carry holders are among the most responsible, law-abiding citizen in the country—it makes no sense to restrict their constitutional rights just because they want to check their mail.
Of all the places Americans should expect permission to exercise their constitutional rights, federal property should be the first. The Constitution (supposedly) dictates how the federal government is allowed to operate—the freedoms it guarantees should first and foremost apply to areas under direct federal control.
The Court’s decision also disarms law-abiding American citizens when the threat from terrorism has never been higher. The recent attacks in Brussels, Paris, and San Bernardino demonstrate that federal officials are often powerless to stop smart, well-funded terrorist networks. A legally armed American might be the only barrier between a minimal casualty event and a bloodbath. The high court has now removed that defense in one of the areas terrorists are most likely to target: federal property.
(Editor’s note: This article was a submission from freelance writer Jordan Michaels.)