Quote of the Day
Our Nation has grappled with threats to mail carriers and post offices since the Founding. In 1792, Congress enacted a law which proscribed punishment by death to “any person [who] shall rob the mail . . . or shall steal and take . . . from or out of any post- office, any letter or packet.” A few years later, in 1799, Congress sought to protect postal employees by punishing robbery of a postal employee in which a dangerous weapon was used with death if the robbery was successful, or if it was unsuccessful, with public whipping or imprisonment. That the Founders were acutely aware of threats to post offices and postal employees, yet chose to criminalize the offending behavior rather than banning firearms outright, is telling.
Reed O’Connor
Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division
Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, Et Al. v. Pamela Bondi (backup here)
See also what the FPC and SAF has to say about this case. Most importantly, the ruling does not protect all people from prosecution for carrying in the Fifth Circuit. Only the two individuals and the members of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
That last point is something I have written about many times before. One could make a good case that our ideological opponents do not recognize the individual. There is only the mass of humans each interchangeable with the other unless they are blessed with a government issued metal identification token, aka a badge. Or as I sometimes describe it, they desire to treat us like cattle.
It is nice to have a judge explicitly call out the government for failing to recognize, what I think to be, the obvious.
But there is another hypothesis which merits consideration. It could be our opponents merely act stupid and/or naive. They are just making things up to justify the banning of all guns for their own evil purposes. The truth would not go over well so they make up reasons why can and should be deprived of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm.
Question: will the justice department appeal? In an earlier 2A case, the Trump justice dept. chose not to appeal a 2A friendly holding – against the (originated by the Biden admin) position of the government. They may well do the same here.
Nonetheless, unless you’re in the 5th circuit and a member of the aforementioned groups, I would not openly flout the no carry on a PO law unless you wish to be a test case. And that will be long and expensive. I don’t advise it.
This week is really shaping up.
Agreed.
“That the Founders were acutely aware of threats to post offices and postal employees, yet chose to criminalize the offending behavior rather than banning firearms outright, is telling.”
No, it’s not telling. It’s basic legal structure under the constitution.
Any law wrote against firearms would not only be ignorant on it’s face, (even today).
But also unconstitutional and automatically void under the 2A. And the supremacy clause. Plus be a violation of one’s oath of office. Treason.
(Only your enemies want you disarmed.)
The fact that a sitting judge would be somehow surprised by or find it “telling” is more telling than anything to the rest of us.
The real tell here is the fact that tyrants of the day would ban firearms just as quickly as they do today.
Their problems always stemmed from people’s reactions. Even if one wasn’t schooled back then. Or even heard of the constitution.
The idea that you should be disarmed would have quickly been dealt with in the most violent of manners.
As it should be today. From the judges own mouth how our forefathers dealt with criminals for just stealing a letter.
” Congress enacted a law which proscribed punishment by death to “any person [who] shall rob the mail . . . or shall steal and take . . . from or out of any post- office, any letter or packet.”
Those that want you disarmed, want you so for their own violent intentions toward you.