We have another firearms law found unconstitutional in the wake of Bruen, but this one has a significant difference.
On Friday, January 12th, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled that a United States law prohibiting people from possessing firearms while inside of a post office goes against their constitutional rights.
According to Fox News, Judge Mizelle, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, cited a 2022 landmark United States Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights when she dismissed part of an indictment charging a postal worker with illegally possessing a gun in a federal facility.
That landmark case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, recognized a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense and established a new test for assessing firearms restrictions, noting it must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The indictment against the postal worker, Emmanuel Ayala, was brought forth because of the Smith & Wesson 9mm gun that he kept in a fanny pack with his concealed carry permit. Ayala framed his case around the Bruen decision, arguing that the prohibition against guns in a federal postal facility is “unconstitutional” as applied to him because the “historical record does not support a law banning firearms in post offices.”
Mizelle noted that the United States’ response to Ayala’s claim was that the “Second Amendment allows it to punish the bearing of arms inside any government building.” The United States specifically deemed a post office as a “sensitive place,” claiming that such a designation means the government can “ban the carrying of firearms while not violating an individual’s Second Amendment rights” and is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Mizelle rejected that claim, writing, “[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 sided with Ayala is his claim that the law prohibiting guns in a federal postal facility was unconstitutional, writing, “I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
Snip.
In her decision, Mizelle stated that federal law did not ban guns in government buildings until 1964 and in post offices until 1972. She said there is no historical practice dating back to the 1700s that justifies the ban. The judge said allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities would allow it to “abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence.
The big difference here is that previous anti-gun laws overturned in the wake of Bruen have been state laws, but this one is a federal law. Perhaps one slipped by while I wasn’t looking, but I believe that this is the first federal law overturned in the wake of Bruen.
Decision by decision, the Second Amendment is slowly being restored to its proper place in American jurisprudence.