On September 24, NRA filed an amicus brief supporting a challenge to the federal ban on carrying firearms at post offices.
The government argues that the prohibition is constitutional because post offices are sensitive government buildings where arms bans are presumptively lawful.
NRA’s brief argues that under Bruen, all firearms regulations must be historically justified—even those affecting sensitive places. And historically sensitive government locations included only legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses. In fact, while the U.S. Post Office has existed since 1775—the whole of America’s history—the government first prohibited firearms in post offices in 1972—nearly 200 years after the Post Office’s creation.
Moreover, the brief argues, post offices are not analogous to legislative assemblies, polling places, or courthouses. The latter are all centers of democratic government deliberation—the core component of the “sensitive place” designation for government buildings. While post offices may serve an important role in national communication, they are not homes of government deliberation. And the government does not treat post offices as sensitive: post offices do not generally have limited entry or enhanced security, which might lower the need for individuals to provide for their own defense.
Thus, NRA’s brief argues that post offices are not sensitive places and, regardless, the prohibition on firearms therein is unconstitutional.
The case is United States v. Ayala. It is before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
