A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.

The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.

    • Ultragramps@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The USPS has been abused by DeJoy, another trump appointee, who filled the fleet with more gas vehicles with less efficiency than previous models. That and removing public mail boxes for “reasons that totally didn’t have to do with mail-in voting helping Democrats win elections, promise.”

      • BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It wasn’t just blue boxes, he also shut down sorting machines, slowing mail processing in another attempt to delay mail-in ballots. Luckily we weren’t sending these off to get sorted at the plant and would take them to the town hall directly which probably helped circumvent a lot of late ballots. Can’t say this was done in every office but in my local area I know we did that.

        Edit: a word

        • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It may have a little to do with voting, but it’s ultimately just the logistics lobby flexing their influence to further weaken the USPS. End game is privatization of the mail for the short term, but ideally dissolution of the service altogether to remove the public option that helps keep consumer shipping prices in check.

          • BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            The timing of a Trump crony shutting down mail sorting machines during the largest mail in election in history shortly after being appointed by Trump isn’t a coincidence. I agree with the rest of your statement, though.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      47
      ·
      10 months ago

      now must allow armed nut jobs inside

      What do you imagine was blocking such people from carrying in the first place? A sign?

      “Well shit Jethro. Sign says it right there. ‘No nutty gunners allowed.’ Let’s go put our shit back in the truck. 'Parently the libs won’t ‘allow’ us to shoot the place up. Dang it!”

      People like you are why our politicians waste political capital on bullshit laws instead of working towards real solutions. You actually believe carry bans are effective? Ignorant at best, a childish conception of human behavior, and that’s me being charitable.

      “Well, by golly I don’t like it! A ban should do nicely! Put those bad people in their place for once!”

      Yeah. Worked for alcohol, abortion and drugs, didn’t it?

      the place that mass shootings in the US began

      Fuck are you on about? I know, bag on Florida, score internet points, feel righteous. Getting that dopamine hit? Feeling smart?

      Know why you hear so much crazy shit about Florida?

      We got 21.7 million people here, third most populous state in the union. (A million is “a lot” for those of you lacking math.) Yeah, we gonna have some fruits and nuts.

      We got “sunshine laws”, a liberal idea, one I adore, that allows free reporting of crime and much more.

      Florida began its tradition of openness back in 1909 with the passage of Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes or the “Public Records Law.” This law provides that any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection, unless specifically exempted by the Florida Legislature.

      Perhaps we should rescind that? Take the wind out of the sails for people like you?

      We got a nut case governor, who is certainly going to lose his next election. LOL, we can’t do worse.

      Where you from? Bet money I can bag on your state as hard or harder.

      • BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        A lot to unpack here but I’ll just focus on this;

        the place that mass shootings in the US began

        The term “going postal” is what they’re referring to.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        What do you imagine was blocking such people from carrying in the first place? A sign?

        It’s this simple: if it’s legal to carry a gun somewhere then you have no idea which armed people are responsible, sane gun owners; if it’s illegal to carry a gun somewhere, then anyone with a gun is therefore not a sane, responsible gun owner, which is really damn good to know before they are pointing the gun at someone.

        No it doesn’t prevent crazy people with guns, but it let’s you know that anyone with a gun is a threat and measures should be taken immediately.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The thing is that the experiment you imagine --implementing common-sense gun-reform-- has been run hundreds of times in other countries and the result was not, as you hypothesize, that suddenly they were overrun by bad guys with guns who don’t care about gun laws, but rather was that they saw precipitous declines in gun violence and gun-related deaths.

        Basically, your hypothesis, which you and others take for granted as evidently true, is objectively incorrect, and has been shown to be so many times. What does a rational actor do when their hypothesis is shown to be incorrect? Do they continue to defend it? Help me make sense of your thinking, because what it looks like to me is a complete refusal to confront and accept reality.