The Department of Justice is asking a federal district court to clarify a ruling; a request that would gut the court's decision that found some post office carry prohibitions to be unconstitutional.
The case Firearms Policy Coalition v. Bondi is a challenge to the law that prohibits lawful carry of firearms in some U.S. Postal Service property. As previously reported, the U.S. District Court of Northern Texas ruled that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” The DOJ requested on October 28 to have that ruling “clarified.”
“This Court enjoined Defendant from enforcing the challenged federal criminal and regulatory provisions as to the organizational Plaintiffs, but Defendant does not know to whom the injunction applies because membership information is exclusively within the possession and control of the organizational Plaintiffs, who do not want to share it with the federal government,” the Department of Justice wrote. “Defendant appreciates the importance of membership confidentiality, but at the same time, an injunction protecting unknown individuals is untenable and contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).”
The filing goes on to state that they need clarification or modification of the judgment. Through the requested clarification, the Justice Department says the court “should accordingly clarify that its declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are limited to the individual Plaintiffs and to individuals who have been identified and verified to the government as members of the organizational Plaintiffs.”
In response to rulings limited to plaintiffs only, Firearms Policy Coalition started issuing membership certificates. “In the wake of two major court-ordered injunctions explicitly protecting members of Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the organization today launched a new secure online portal where members can instantly verify their membership status, download or print an official FPC Certificate of Membership Status, update their contact information, and join or renew their FPC membership,” the Coalition said in a release.
The Second Amendment Foundation, FPC’s co-plaintiff in this case, has sent their members membership cards for years — if not for the entirety of their existence.
While the DOJ and government continues to seek to limit the scope of any and all cases challenging federal laws in the vein of Trump v. CASA, the alleged need for clarity in this case appears to be strictly motivated by not giving any ground to plaintiffs challenging Uncle Sam.
Those critical of the Department of Justice need not look much further than the cited case: Trump v. CASA. The policies and stances we’re currently dealing with are in direct correlation with the Trump Administration's attack on nationwide injunctions.
Conversely, the head of the American Suppressor Association, Knox Williams has a more pragmatic view. On the October 20 episode of Bearing Arms' Cam and Co, Williams gave some deference to the Administration. This deference was given when discussing another case. Williams said that the government’s attorney in the Peterson case “clearly has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the Second Amendment.”
“We've seen that time and again,” Williams noted. “And I think that, you know, we saw that back earlier in the year, when they actually rescinded one of their briefs and basically rewrote it. I think that that was a pretty clear sign that his views are not in line with the views of the administration, and we're hopeful that the administration will step in here again.”
Whether we’re dealing directly with a Justice Department that refuses to cede any ground to all challenges of federal law or if this is just a product of remaining swamp creatures/incompetent government lawyers has yet to be completely determined. Regardless of the vehicle or motivation, it’s the Second Amendment and supporters of gun rights that suffer.
The United States Postal Service has been mum on the ruling. USPS Senior Public Relations Representative Felicia Lott commented when they were queried about the opinion.
“The Postal Service is aware of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas regarding the ban on firearms possession on postal property, which enjoins enforcement of the ban at certain Post Offices, and the surrounding Post Office property, with respect to certain postal customers,” Lott said in a written statement. “The Postal Service is currently analyzing the court’s decision and taking necessary steps to implement the injunction.”
This filing by the DOJ is fresh and how the court will view it is also a wild card. The hope we can lean on is that the decision will be reiterated — properly — and that the relief offered won’t be to a narrow subset of Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation members. Many of us have membership cards and certificates to prove we’re affected parties and that should be good enough — if we can’t have a nationwide injunction for all persons.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member