Judge Rules Ban on Firearms in Post Offices Unconstitutional in Landmark Case

This week, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle issued a consequential ruling regarding the prohibition of firearms within U.S. Post Offices.

The case centered on Emmanuel Ayala, a postal worker facing charges of illegal firearm possession in a federal facility. Ayala founded his defense on the monumental United States Supreme Court decision in Bruen (June 2022), contending that the ban on guns in post offices was “unconstitutional as applied to him” because of a lack of historical precedent.

United States V. Ayala: Ayala's Argument:

Ayala's argument collided with the U.S. government's position, which maintained that the Second Amendment permitted the punishment for bearing arms inside any government building.

Since 1972, the United States has designated United States Post Office buildings and parking lots as “sensitive places,” justifying the prohibition on carrying concealed firearms while asserting 39 C.F.R. § 232.1‘s alignment with historical traditions of firearm regulation. One of the many cases challenging this prohibition is Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service (2015).

The Government's case did not sway Judge Kathryn Mixelle, who President Trump appointed as a U.S. District Judge. She underscored Bruen's requirement for historical support, a requirement that the U.S. failed to meet.

Despite the existence of post offices since the nation's founding and potential threats faced by postal workers, Mizelle found no historical regulation addressing safety concerns through firearm restrictions within post offices.

Judge Mizelle wrote the following: [Bruen] 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 the 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….Bruen deems this absence strong evidence of the statute’s unconstitutionality.

Mizelle's Opinion Affirms Bruen:

It's clear Mizelle's opinion is that the law prohibiting guns in federal postal facilities violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The case, United States v. Ayala, No. 8:22-cr-00369, recorded in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. This ruling is just one of the many monumental post-Bruen, 2nd Amendment cases that's driven broad discourse on gun rights in America.

The government has long enjoyed a powerful and unconstitutional overreach in firearm regulation. Proponents of gun restrictions always say their oppressive gun laws are necessary to keep the public safe.

Ayala, and every other freedom-loving American that doesn't want to re-write the U.S. Constitution, believe gun restrictions not only are ineffective because they only punish the law-abiding, they violate the individual's legal rights.

This clash of perspectives exposes the intricate interplay between individual liberties and governmental regulations.

Lack of Historical Support for Firearm Ban:

In pointing out the Government's failure to provide historical support for banning firearms on USPS property, Judge Mizelle again affirms the incredible significance of the Supreme Court's decision in the Bruen case. as mandated by Bruen.

Mizelle's rejection resonates with those who have for years insisted the Second Amendment precludes the government from instituting arbitrary firearm regulations. Here is another excerpt from Mizelle's opinion:

Since the Post Office’s creation, mail carriers have faced the risk of violence. Passengers of nineteenth-century stagecoaches, which carried mail, “risked death or injury if coaches were attacked by robbers or Indians.” USPS, AN AMERICAN HISTORY at 5, 17. Recognizing this reality, Congresses in the first half of the nineteenth century appropriated money to reward individuals who helped apprehend postal robbers. See, e.g., An Act for the Relief of D.W. Haley, ch. 66, 25 Stat. 713 (1838). In the latter half of the nineteenth century, when locomotive became the dominant way to move mail, bandits threatened postal workers aboard trains. Colorado Train Robbers, N.Y.TIMES, 2 Sept. 1891, at 8. Yet the federal government never sought to ban firearms to protect employees or secure mail delivery. In fact, when mail train robberies became a growing threat in the early twentieth century, the Postmaster General armed railway mail clerks with “government-issued pistols” from World War I. USPS,AN AMERICAN HISTORY at 23, 107

Ayala's Legal Battle isn't Over:

Ayala still faces a charge from resisting arrest, related to the charge that he violated the law in carrying a concealed handgun on USPS property. His argument is that the state should pull the resisting arrest charge because the arrest itself was illegal. Mizelle didn't address that charge, and so Ayala still battles in court.

My Take:

In conclusion, this legal saga encapsulates the tension between individual liberties and government-imposed restrictions, with Ayala emerging as a symbol challenging the constitutionality of firearm bans in federal postal facilities.

As the discourse on gun rights in America evolves, Mizelle's ruling in United States v. Ayala adds a chapter to the ongoing narrative, underscoring how understanding historical context is shaping constitutional interpretations within the realm of the Second Amendment.

Do you carry a gun for self-defense? Have you considered how much money a legal defense for even an unconstitutional gun charge would cost?

If you haven't thought about it, consider reading this post, and checking out our full, side-by-side comparison of legal representation services for civilian gun carriers.