PA Bill Number: SB1306

Title: In protection from abuse, further providing for commencement of proceedings.

Description: In protection from abuse, further providing for commencement of proceedings. ...

Last Action: Re-referred to APPROPRIATIONS

Last Action Date: Sep 18, 2024

more >>

More events

Editorial: Postal gun ban should be tossed :: 11/30/2011

We're glad a federal judge will allow a lawsuit by an Avon couple with concealed-carry permits.

By The Denver Post

When the Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that the Constitution protected an individual right to bear arms, it allowed reasonable restrictions such as "long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Does the court's definition cover post offices? And even if the answer is yes, does it also cover postal parking lots?

We don't think that a post office - let alone an adjoining parking lot - qualifies under the court's standard as a "sensitive place" where guns may be comprehensively banned. So we're glad a federal judge in Denver has allowed a lawsuit to go forward challenging the U.S. Postal Service's ban on guns.

The case, which has national implications, involves an Avon couple, Debbie and Tab Bonidy. The Bonidys possess concealed-carry permits under Colorado law, regularly carry hand guns for self-defense and pick up their mail at a post office 10 miles from home.

Under post office rules, however, they can't even drive into the parking lot with a gun in the car.

Nor could a hunter, for that matter, who had no intention of carrying his rifle or shotgun indoors.

According to the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represents the Bonidys, federal statute "prohibits private possession of firearms in federal facilities, except those firearms carried 'incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.' - " These exceptions do not apply to federal courts, where a total ban on guns is enforced.