Trego's Mountain Ear

You can wear a pistol into the post office now – you’ll just have to travel to Florida to do it. Here is the link to the court results in US v Ayala, down in Tampa. 

Judge Kathryn Kimbel Mizzelle issued her ruling in mid-January, based only on second amendment grounds, interpreted under the Bruen criteria (just as a side note, the judge clerked for Clarence Thomas earlier in her career). 

The first page of her opinion makes things clear:  “the government must point to historical principles that would permit it to prohibit firearms possession in post offices. See id. at 17, 24. The 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.”

“2. Section 930(a)’s Application to Post Offices Has No Historical Support The United States concedes that “[t]here 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.” Gov’t Suppl. Br. at 4. Despite the opportunity to present supplemental briefing, the United States fails to point to sufficient historical evidence supporting § 930(a)’s application here. See id. at 15–16 (providing only two paragraphs listing potential historical analogues without any analysis of how they are relevantly similar). i. The Historical Record Yields No “Distinctly Similar Historical Regulation Addressing” a Problem that “Has Persisted Since” the Founding “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 34 (quotations omitted). “

I could go on quoting the court opinion – but you can click the link and read the whole thing.  I am not an attorney, and my other habits are good, so I have no idea how this case will hold up if it goes to a higher court.