Bonidy v. United States Postal Service
790 F.3d 1121
10th Cir.2015Background
- Tab Bonidy, a Colorado licensed concealed-carry permit holder, sued after USPS General Counsel advised he could be prosecuted for carrying or storing a firearm on USPS property pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l).
- Avon, Colorado post office requires patrons to pick up mail at the lobby; the facility has an unsecured customer parking lot owned by USPS where a mail drop box is located.
- Bonidy sought declaratory and injunctive relief to carry into the building and to store his gun in his vehicle in the USPS parking lot while retrieving mail; district court upheld the ban for the building but invalidated it as to the parking lot.
- The government and Bonidy cross-appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo on summary judgment.
- The panel held the regulation constitutional for both the post office building and the adjacent parking lot, reasoning that government buildings (and attached parking serving them) fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protection; alternatively, the lot survives intermediate scrutiny as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) violates the Second Amendment as applied to carrying a firearm into the Avon post office building | Bonidy: ban infringes his right to bear arms for self-defense | USPS: government buildings are "sensitive places" where firearms may be restricted; USPS may set proprietor rules for safety | Regulation upheld as to the post office building; Second Amendment rights do not extend to government buildings as applied here |
| Whether the regulation prohibits storing a firearm in Bonidy's car in the USPS-owned parking lot in violation of the Second Amendment | Bonidy: parking lot is public/private space where he has a right to keep and bear arms; as-applied challenge shows overbreadth and weak fit | USPS: parking lot is part of USPS property serving the facility; uniform national rule is substantially related to safety; proprietor authority permits regulation | Regulation upheld as to the parking lot (reversing district court); court treats lot as part of government building or, alternatively, upholds under intermediate scrutiny |
| Proper scope of Second Amendment outside the home | Bonidy (concurrence): Second Amendment protects bearing arms outside the home; Heller/McDonald do not confine right to the home | USPS (majority): Heller/McDonald language identifying "sensitive places" is binding dicta and supports limiting bearing in government buildings | Majority assumes without deciding limited force of right outside home but holds regulation constitutional; concurrence would explicitly hold right extends beyond home and would invalidate lot ban as applied |
| Standard of review for as-applied public-carry challenges | Bonidy: intermediate scrutiny requires substantial relation and factual showing particular to location and permit-holders | USPS: intermediate scrutiny met by interest in employee/patron safety and administratively workable uniform rule | Court applies intermediate scrutiny (if right applies) and finds substantial relation; concurrence agrees on standard but disagrees that relation shown for the lot |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home and lists "sensitive places" as presumptively regulable)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporates Second Amendment against the states and reaffirms Heller language about longstanding regulatory measures)
- Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013) (Tenth Circuit precedent limiting Second Amendment protection for concealed carry outside the home)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that the Second Amendment extends outside the home for public-carry purposes)
- United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (applies intermediate scrutiny in as-applied Second Amendment context)
- United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2012) (applies intermediate scrutiny and discusses permissible prophylactic measures for classes posing heightened risk)
- United States Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 458 U.S. 114 (1982) (recognizes need for uniform national postal regulations and administrative efficiency)