By Dave Workman
A federal district court judge in Texas has ruled that an injunction issued last fall against enforcement of a ban on firearms carry on post office property applies to all current and future members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.
The September ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor declared the carry ban on post office property is unconstitutional, and enjoined the government from further enforcement.
“The truly shocking thing here is that even after a United States District Judge declared this law unconstitutional, the government responded by saying ‘yeah but we want to continue enforcing it against almost everyone,’” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a statement to the media. “We are heartened by today’s ruling and that the court was not persuaded by the government’s argument. Applying the injunction to all current and future SAF members is consistent with well-settled case law and being included in injunctions like these are one of the best reasons to be a SAF member.”
“This is a huge win for current and future SAF members nationwide,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “There was never a constitutional justification to disarm people who simply need to go to the post office. Despite the government’s attempt to continue to enforce this unconstitutional law against as many people as possible, the court today followed the law and confirmed that all current and future SAF members are covered by the injunction against the enforcement of this ban. If you’re not already, this is a great time to become a SAF member.”
“We are delighted that the law and common-sense prevailed in this important fight to secure the right to carry throughout the United States. The Trump Administration should stop trying to redline the Constitution and end their war on appropriate judicial relief,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2024, and this outcome could have national implications. The case challenged the carry ban in post offices and on post office property.
In his four-page ruling, Judge O’Connor noted, “The Government asserts that the Court’s injunctive relief should be limited only to individuals who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) as of June 18, 2024—the date Plaintiffs filed their complaint—because FPC and SAF ‘did not have standing to represent and obtain relief for members who did not yet exist.’ The Government argues that to obtain relief for members who join after June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs should have sought class certification. Otherwise, the Government argues, nearly any organization could evade the Supreme Court’s prohibition of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA, Inc…by using associational standing as a ‘backdoor way’ to grant universal injunctions. But despite its arguments, the Government has not provided, and the Court has not found, a case limiting injunctive relief to only those members of an association at the time a lawsuit is filed. And while Plaintiffs could have sought class certification, they apparently also relied instead on associational standing—which the Government seemingly agrees they have in some form.”
Judge O’Connor went on to explain, “Not including future members could cause FPC and SAF’s injunctive relief to disappear due to attrition or death of their members or impose a significant burden on the organizations to track which members qualify for injunctive relief and which do not. Or, as another court explained, could ‘result in continuous litigation and be a waste of judicial resources as well as the time and resources of the litigants.’”
Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com
