Spokane court amends rules on weapons on courthouse grounds

[ANZAC]

I saw this from a Rivitman link, surprised there was no discussion here.

Basically 18 USC 930 (f) allows a court to expand firearm restrictions to grounds "appurtenant" to a courthouse.

After Anthony Bosworth was arrested and released because he hadn't broken any law, the court decided to just ....change the law.
http://www.waed.uscourts.gov/sites/defa ... 5-54-1.pdf

It just seems ridiculous to me, that:
1) there is a federal law that allows such a thing
2) that there's no check and balance to it

While I'm not so sure about the inclusion of the US Post Office grounds in the order, it does seem to me like she is operating within that what that subsection describes. But it feels very wrong.

Here are some relevant posts
http://www.examiner.com/article/spokane ... al-grounds
http://www.patrickhenrysociety.com/6-ma ... est-story/

I don't agree with all the reactions, conspiracy theories, letters to the Governor/Sheriffs etc., but it seems to me there is a core of truth here.

[Massivedesign]

Hold on... Just a couple of years ago a federal judge ruled that firearms in USPS parking lots were okay?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/

[joao01]

Hold on... Just a couple of years ago a federal judge ruled that firearms in USPS parking lots were okay?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/

I have a place that does USPS, FEDEX, and UPS. It is in the same shopping center as the post office, but so much easier than dealing with the headache of the actual post office.

[ANZAC]

Hold on... Just a couple of years ago a federal judge ruled that firearms in USPS parking lots were okay?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/

I think their argument will be that it is adjacent and appurtenant (which is BS even if it is next door) but IMHO the bad guy here is a federal law that doles out law making powers to judges for areas that are completely open to the public and not in any way associated with proceedings inside the court.

I see with a bit of Googling that this particular law has been cited as a tool by anti-gunners for a while now.

Be interesting to see if there is any case history on this law.

[mislabeled]

This certainly appears to be in direct conflict with the circuit ruling issued in CO regarding post office properties. Because there is no "post office business" conducted in the parking lot, the circuit judge ruled the gov had no basis for firearms restrictions in those areas. How would this possibly differ from that previous ruling? Are other individual rights also suspended in those areas? Can protestors still set up shop there and display signage?

Given the rather clear legal precedent afforded by the CO case, I see this being challenged pretty quickly (and for good reason).

[ANZAC]

This certainly appears to be in direct conflict with the circuit ruling issued in CO regarding post office properties. Because there is no "post office business" conducted in the parking lot, the circuit judge ruled the gov had no basis for firearms restrictions in those areas. How would this possibly differ from that previous ruling? Are other individual rights also suspended in those areas? Can protestors still set up shop there and display signage?

Given the rather clear legal precedent afforded by the CO case, I see this being challenged pretty quickly (and for good reason).

Sure, but all they have to do is amend the order to remove the post office reference. The bigger issue to me is, why does federal law give judges the discretion to limit our rights in a public area? Public is public.

[mislabeled]

Sure, but all they have to do is amend the order to remove the post office reference. The bigger issue to me is, why does federal law give judges the discretion to limit our rights in a public area? Public is public.

I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I think the CO decision may have been specific to firearms but could still actually work as a precedent to nullify or limit in scope the law giving judges those kinds of powers. If no court business is being carried out in an area deemed under the judge's purview, then does the judge really have the legal standing to set restrictions?

[joao01]

Sure, but all they have to do is amend the order to remove the post office reference. The bigger issue to me is, why does federal law give judges the discretion to limit our rights in a public area? Public is public.

I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I think the CO decision may have been specific to firearms but could still actually work as a precedent to nullify or limit in scope the law giving judges those kinds of powers. If no court business is being carried out in an area deemed under the judge's purview, then does the judge really have the legal standing to set restrictions?

and isn't the fact that 30 plus armed people were on the "banned" area simply nullifaction of the court order? If the court or LE chooses not to enforce it, then what it to stop someone else later from being arrested and citing the previous event as proof of selective enforcement.

I probably don't know nearly as much about nullification as I should, outside of the jury application of it.

[ANZAC]

Here is the Post office (on left), courthouse on right

(not sure if this link will work)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/920+W ... 83e93b625e

Here is the text of 18 USC 930 (f)

(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.

[mislabeled]

The legal definition from this page -- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/appurtenant -- defines appurtenant as having some real and acute attachment to the property, with easements and covenants being specifically called out. Just because an area exists next to a courthouse structure doesn't mean it is appurtenant (using that definition).

This also fits the judge's rationale in the CO post office ruling. He identified the public parking lot as an area where no post office business actually took place, but also went on to say that the restricted-access lot was reasonably included in the post office "property," as post office business was conducted there (the unloading of mail, etc.). Following that logic, the parking areas that were off limits to the public were not part of the post office structure but were appurtenant, while the public parking areas -- though adjacent to the structure and likely even on the same parcel of land -- were not appurtenant.

Simply being next to or nearby something shouldn't give anyone carte blanche to wield power over it. Adjacency doesn't appear to equal appurtenancy (is that a word?), and it clearly isn't a sufficient argument in and of itself to curtail an individual's rights.

ETA: The wording of that regulation is backwards, no? Saying there is nothing in the law to limit the gov's powers is the opposite of how things were intended to be structured. Powers were to be granted to the gov with a narrow scope, and all else fell to the states or the people themselves. Too often these days people seem to forget that.

[joao01]

The legal definition from this page -- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/appurtenant -- defines appurtenant as having some real and acute attachment to the property, with easements and covenants being specifically called out. Just because an area exists next to a courthouse structure doesn't mean it is appurtenant (using that definition).

This also fits the judge's rationale in the CO post office ruling. He identified the public parking lot as an area where no post office business actually took place, but also went on to say that the restricted-access lot was reasonably included in the post office "property," as post office business was conducted there (the unloading of mail, etc.). Following that logic, the parking areas that were off limits to the public were not part of the post office structure but were appurtenant, while the public parking areas -- though adjacent to the structure and likely even on the same parcel of land -- were not appurtenant.

Simply being next to or nearby something shouldn't give anyone carte blanche to wield power over it. Adjacency doesn't appear to equal appurtenancy (is that a word?), and it clearly isn't a sufficient argument in and of itself to curtail an individual's rights.

ETA: The wording of that regulation is backwards, no? Saying there is nothing in the law to limit the gov's powers is the opposite of how things were intended to be structured. Powers were to be granted to the gov with a narrow scope, and all else fell to the states or the people themselves. Too often these days people seem to forget that.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

[ANZAC]

ETA: The wording of that regulation is backwards, no? Saying there is nothing in the law to limit the gov's powers is the opposite of how things were intended to be structured. Powers were to be granted to the gov with a narrow scope, and all else fell to the states or the people themselves. Too often these days people seem to forget that.

It is a clarification that there is nothing in the remainder of the section (other than f) that limits the courts power in this regard.

It still seems bogus to me.

How big could the appurtenant be? What if it was adjacent/part of a national park/reserve?

The issue with it is there is no check or balance. There should be a hearing, an appeal process. Not a unilateral authority.

[ANZAC]

I couldn't find anything on this beyond this old thread in which it was discussed, but SCOTUS in Mar 2016 refused to hear an appeal and the appellate court decision that guns are NOT ALLOWED in post office parking lots to stand. WTF.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/21/supre ... t-offices/

[Benja455]

Huh...so a reversal of the previous ruling? Fuck that shit. This is why I print my postage at home and toss it into the closest mail box. I also have the USPS deliver flat rate boxes straight to my door - no need to step foot in a Post Office or their "gun-free" parking lots.

Meanwhile, the only reason this law exists is because of postal EMPLOYEES shooting up the place...not any lawful concealed carrier.

[deadshot2]

Huh...so a reversal of the previous ruling? Fuck that shit. This is why I print my postage at home and toss it into the closest mail box. I also have the USPS deliver flat rate boxes straight to my door - no need to step foot in a Post Office or their "gun-free" parking lots.

Meanwhile, the only reason this law exists is because of postal EMPLOYEES shooting up the place...not any lawful concealed carrier.

I'm always armed when I deal with the post office.

I weigh and print my postage at home and if I can't just give it to the postal person in their little truck I take it to one of the private mailbox locations. People there are friendlier and the lines shorter.