Staff Reports
Second Amendment stalwarts marched into federal court this week to take the bull by the horns and challenge Uncle Sam’s nonsensical ban on carrying firearms in post offices. They’re calling it out for what it is: a blatant infringement on the right to bear arms.
In the heart of Texas, the lawsuit argues that this ridiculous ban can’t pass muster under the Supreme Court’s enlightened understanding of the Second Amendment. If it wouldn’t have flown in 1776, it shouldn’t fly now. The brain trust over at the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation are standing firm, stating that the founding fathers did accept restrictions in some places—polling booths, legislative halls, and courthouses—where the feds have their own security. But let’s face it, the post office is not even in the same league.
Gun rights groups sue to overturn ban on firearms at post officeshttps://t.co/aBK0oLcbQq pic.twitter.com/Qk3HXcqvKc
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 18, 2024
These groups made it clear: since the federal government isn’t protecting post offices round the clock, it has no business outlawing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves there. Millions of gun owners can’t be expected to disarm just because they need to mail a letter or cash a money order. These arbitrary rules are a slap in the face to the very essence of the Second Amendment.
Adam Kraut, the executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, didn’t mince words. He pointed out that there is no historical precedent for this kind of regulation, making it nothing more than a modern-day ploy to chip away at gun rights. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Bruen case last year underlined the need for historical consistency in gun laws, prompting this necessary reevaluation of arbitrary weapons bans.
The heat is on for gun grabbers as supporters of the right to bear arms launch challenges against all sorts of unconstitutional limits. These include several draconian measures aimed at dictating what kinds of firearms Americans can own, who can possess them, and where they can carry them. The Supreme Court is about to rule on another case that could deal a blow to those who think they can rewrite the Constitution on a whim.
In this tussle, the lawsuit calls out Attorney General Merrick Garland, putting him squarely in the crosshairs. The Washington Times reports that they’ve reached out to the Justice Department. As it stands, federal law bans firearms on postal property under threat of jail time, which is more than a minor inconvenience for everyday Americans like George Mandry. This Texan small business owner can’t even visit the post office without disarming, disrupting his workday and burdening him more than the Constitution should ever permit.
The tides may be turning, but this case is a stark reminder that vigilance is essential to protect freedoms that shouldn’t be up for debate.
